Related
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 3 years ago.
Improve this question
What I mean is if I am breaking a programming project estimate down into tasks as much as possible would there be a good maximum to make the tasks. Meaning if I say the max is 4-6 then if any task is more hours than that it needs to be broken down into more tasks. I feel like there is a point where this becomes not much more useful though and think that a max of 10-12 hours is acceptable, the boss does not agree. The idea here is to be able to know as well as possible how much time is needed to complete the task but at the same time I think there is a point where too much breakdown is meaningless until you actually dive into the code. Any thoughts or common practice?
Make the breakdown structure detailed enough to allow you make a proper estimation, but not too detailed so you'll have trouble maintaining and tracking it later, when things change (not if things change, but when things change).
It doesn't really matter the number of hours a task in WBS is estimated.
When I was writing my own time breakdowns for a task, I found the most useful number to go with as a goal for a single task to be max'd at about 4 hours. Then, if it turned out to be really difficult and take a lot longer than I expected, it wasn't so terrible.
I don't think it is useful to actually hold any of these projects as meaningful unless:
1.) The person performing the task created the projection.
2.) The person creating the projection is familiar enough with the work.
At my last job, I didn't even start projecting tasks until I had been there for three months. After that, it was another month or two before my projections were meaningful.
I think that this is a very individual thing. If you are used to thinking about things at an extremely detailed level, it makes more sense to have lots of small tasks. If you like to think of things in more general terms, it makes sense to have a few big tasks. I believe if you and your boss try and enforce this sort of personal preference into task projection, you will find that your projections are meaningless at best and a creator of hostility at worst.
I hope my experiences and expression of them is useful to you.
-Brian J. Stinar-
What does a task look like?
write a document? Write a chapter of document? Write a sentence in a document?
Write a programme? Write a class? Write a method?
I think the following need to be true:
1). A task is big enough so that you know you've finished it. A single sentence or method doesn't stand alone. You typically can't deliver something that small in isolation, the receiver can't "test" it.
So, for example, you can unit test, document and check some code into an SCM that's a task.
I can't imagine tasks smaller than one hour, and typically for me they are half-days.
2). A task is small enough that you can be confident you can do it in the estimated time. You've analysed the problem well enough to understand the chunks.
People are not machines.
Having that said, the way I see it there are two main development modes:
develop
Maintain/fix
For the second one you can gain experience on how long tasks should take - the developer knows the code and most of the times he can give a good prediction what is wrong and what should be done to make it work (in that case tight monitoring + buffer to keep getting good cooperation is in order, if the developer can't get a good estimation - that is an indication of a very big problem)
For the first one - it's more complicated:
if this is hard labor job - one that requires no brain and just take the program from point a to point b than... you can define tight schedule.
If you need the developer to get creative, to think about good implementation etc... You can not wait forever for a masterpiece, yet you will not get much from a developer that have only survival thoughts :)
Learn about Agile -where the team leaders and the developers sets the goals together- the goals may be very demanding but within the development period the developer which feels as responsible as the manager... can manage his time.
So sometimes, with the correct management system - tasks can and perhaps should be a week long.
There is no magic number. Understand your type of programing and find an appropriate management management system.
Good luck
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 5 years ago.
Improve this question
As a new developer who is the only software guy on staff I have faced a few challenges but possibly the most difficult has been time estimates. I strugle every time I have to give a project estimate.
My question then is; If I do not have any experience and I don't have a fellow dev in my environment, how do I provide a solid estimate? I have read Joel Spolsky's article on Evidence Based Scheduling but how can that apply if I do not have any evidence?
I appreciate any advice on this subject.
You don't provide a solid estimate. You give as good an answer as you can, and explain that it is just a very rough estimate, and why it's so rough.
If you make it very clear that:
You can't give an accurate estimate
It's entirely reasonable that you can't give an accurate estimate because it's different work to what you've done before
You'll update the estimate as time goes on and you get to know the topic better
I think you should be okay. You need to make those things very clear though, in writing, so that you don't get held to your rough estimates later.
You are allowed to say "I don't know, I don't have enough evidence"
Then do some prototyping to get some evidence.
Then answer the question.
So you may in fact be able to give an estimate of when you will be able to give the estimate.
IMO Joel is way, way off in his article, and his conclusions and recommendations are not based on any reality. (Sorry, Joel) Fundamentally he says that you should be able to schedule your work down to units of time of hours or less before you even begin. But the reality is you don't know what those units of work are all going to be (in non-trivial systems) before you get in to the code. So you can't come up with an hour-by-hour breakdown of what you're going to do before you even pop the hood and have that breakdown reflect what actually happens with any accuracy.
Giving a project estimate is very difficult if you want that estimate to be of any value. Coming up with accurate estimates is difficult for programmers because very often you don't discover all the complexities of the project until you get under the hood.
So the solution to this is to get under the hood when coming up with estimates. For smaller projects & bug fixes this is fairly straightforward:
Replicate the bug on your machine.
Find the code that is causing the bug.
Figure out how to write the code that will fix the bug.
Estimate how long it will take you to write that code.
In finding the code you have to write you necessarily must discover most or all the complexities that would have thrown off your estimate.
The interesting thing about this method is that the time it takes to generate the estimate is very often 90% of the total time to actually do the work. You practically have to do the work in order to come up with an estimate. With bug fixes especially, the solution is often on the order of one line of code, so your estimate will end up being 5 minutes. That's fine because deadlines can be set around estimates like that.
As you get practice with this you will get better and better at "just knowing" how long things will take. At first you'll only be able to "just know" how long the smallest projects will take. But over time you will be able to estimate larger & larger projects.
I first base my estimate on my percieved complexity of the problem. How big is the problem. How many pieces might it touch or require. This gives me a general guideline. Then I always make sure I add a 15-25% fudge factor because you are going to miss something.
Finally you make it very clear that this is a rough estimate based on your understanding of the problem, and how you might solve it.
Also do not give any rough estimates in very precise increments. 4.5 hours is not a rough estimate. Half a day is a rough estimate.
Although it is very rough, I estimate on Lines of Code. This parameter, whose meaning for productivity is close to zero, still gives you an idea of the complexity of a project.
Measure the fact that on average, a developer can write circa 200, max 300 lines of code per day. Keep into account that just for coding of a single man army:
A small project of 1000 lines of (logic) code can be done in one or two weeks
An average complexity project of 10.000 lines of (logic) code could be completed in two or three months.
A large project of 100.000 lines of (logic) code requires at least a couple of years
To the logic code, you have to add the testing, which is already included in the previous estimates. To have a clue of the complexity, the Gimp is 600.000 lines of code, a kernel ranges in the million or more.
To this, add the fact that if you are working waterfall, the time you need to develop the code is actually a small part of the time needed to develop specifications and design. I would estimate a 2/3 time is for specs+design, and the remaining 1/3 goes in coding, maybe even more on the specs+design part. It is really time consuming.
So, track your estimate from the complexity, to the lines of code, consider the manpower you have and how much they can work in parallel, and add the overhead of specs+design, you will get a very rough estimate.
I suggest you the mythical man month. It is a fantastic book on this regard.
Personally, I imagine an estimate as a statistical distribution - and try to communicate the idea of standard deviation with it:
10 is 'it has a 50% chance to be between 8 and 12'
It's hard to get much more precise than that for overall project estimates. It is perfectly possible to get more precise (split into individual independent stories, collectively estimate each, and other agile practices) - but it has a cost.
(Also, an estimate should NOT be an engagement on deliverables - otherwise it gets padded to death and becomes useless)
If you refuse to give an estimate for something you have never done, you will probably do that all your life. First split the task as much as possible, this will help you clarify how you are going to do it. There is more chances you will be able to compare a fragment of the task with something you have done before. Don't hesitate to communicate your degree of certitude to your manager.
For an experienced programmer, who at least knows the system and has a set of reasonable requirements in front of them, "i don't know" is not a valid answer. If you say you don't know your PHB will go off and apply their 1337 h4x0r sk1lz and make an estimate in the order of "that sounds like a piece of cake, how about 1 hour".
You should be able to break the problem down into a series of smaller problems you've solved before and come up with a reasonable number for each part. Point out that it is very rough and could blow out considerably once you get to full analysis of the problem.
They're called 'estimates' because they're rough. You get better at estimating by doing it more and learning to draw on past experience as much as possible. Remember to factor in contingency (interruptions, task switching, possibility of being sick, possible rework, etc). Usually adding 50% makes the estimate closer to the mark.
Provide a rough estimate and be really clear about that.
Identify a strategy on how you will tackle the project. Particularly identify pieces of the system you can deliver as working intermediate releases. Pay special attention at the closest of these you would be able to release fully functional, and if possible take the rest out of scope (keep a list of these and anything that comes up, to be scheduled as a follow up project).
Use short iterations. Consider/analyze how the intermediate releases fit in 2-6 week iterations. Take into account learnings this give you, and adjust the overall estimate.
Go on with the first iteration, and apply what you learn about the assumptions you made. How off you are in the early iterations usually point to a problem in the estimates. Resist the temptation of considering the deviation in the estimates part of the initial overhead, as you will probably be delaying the point in time where you realize the estimates where off. Note that I do understand/agree the velocity of the project increases over time, but thinking about that tends to hide/delay the issues.
I do this all the time. ALmost everything I do is the first time. How do I estimate ? I guess! And then I guess again. And I keep doing that each delta-time interval that a schedule is reworked, because project plans are iterative and you only what you know when you are doing it. My guesses are pretty good tho because I have, after many many years, figured out what 'looks' easy and what 'looks hard'
Try Function Point Analysis. For CRUD stuff it gives good ballpark figures. It's main advantage is that it's based not on what you are going to implement, but on what the user has asked for. You'll need to find out what your FP productivity is, though. You can use past projects in the same language to do that.
You could use average productivity for the target language if you just can't build a historical dataset. It will give you something, not necessarily approaching reality, but will at least let you compare efforts for different projects.
Now, mind you FPA is bad on algorithmically-heavy software, and it relies on AVERAGES, meaning you'll probably overestimate or underestimate each project.
my coworker always says, first estimate the project length, then multiply it by two add 1 and then add the next highest units. so if your answer is 3 days, then you would say 7 weeks. that's a half joke, one idea would be first estimate the project and then when its finished see how far off you were, maybe you are consistently off by a multiple of 2 or 3, or whatever.
Any unknown task or job always has something which is known to a certain degree and easy to estimate. I split and I give estimates right away for the things I know and for the things I feel I know. The rest is honestly being declared as a thin spot and then we start "bargain". If work giver trusts my competence he will except my rough estimations and risks - we work together. It was never a failure, simply because I would never take a task which I can't lift or run into the ground (gut feeling?). If work giver doesn't trust me, I always recommend who to ask and where to look for a better option. Then we either work together or not. Most of the time we do, but everyone is on the safe side. I do my job, "thin spot specialist" gets his/her cut, managers are happy and customer's satisfied. Perhaps it's a bit naive, but it works for me :)
Closed. This question does not meet Stack Overflow guidelines. It is not currently accepting answers.
This question does not appear to be about programming within the scope defined in the help center.
Closed 5 years ago.
Improve this question
If so why? How much?
I tend to inflate mine a little because I can be overly optimistic.
Hofstadter's Law: Any computing project will take twice as long as you think it will — even when you take into account Hofstadter's Law.
If you inflate your estimate based on past experiences to try and compensate for your inherent optimism, then you aren't inflating. You are trying to provide an accurate estimate. If however you inflate so that you will always have fluff time, that's not so good.
Oh yes, I've learnt to always multiply my initial estimation by two. That's why FogBUGZ's Evidence-Based Scheduling tool is so really useful.
Any organization that asks its programmers to estimate time for coarse-grained features is fundamentally broken.
Steps to unbreak:
Hire technical program managers. Developers can double as these folks if needed.
Put any feature request, change request, or bug into a database immediately when it comes in. (My org uses Trac, which doesn't completely suck.)
Have your PMs break those requests into steps that each take a week or less.
At a weekly meeting, your PMs decide which tickets they want done that week (possibly with input from marketing, etc.). They assign those tickets to developers.
Developers finish as many of their assigned tickets as possible. And/or, they argue with the PMs about tasks they think are longer than a week in duration. Tickets are adjusted, split, reassigned, etc., as necessary.
Code gets written and checked in every week. QA always has something to do. The highest priority changes get done first. Marketing knows exactly what's coming down the pipe, and when. And ultimately:
Your company falls on the right side of the 20% success rate for software projects.
It's not rocket science. The key is step 3. If marketing wants something that seems complicated, your PMs (with developer input) figure out what the first step is that will take less than a week. If the PMs are not technical, all is lost.
Drawbacks to this approach:
When marketing asks, "how long will it take to get [X]?", they don't get an estimate. But we all know, and so do they, that the estimates they got before were pure fiction. At least now they can see proof, every week, that [X] is being worked on.
We, as developers, have fewer options for what we work on each week. This is indubitably true. Two points, though: first, good teams involve the developers in the decisions about what tickets will be assigned. Second, IMO, this actually makes my life better.
Nothing is as disheartening as realizing at the 1-month mark that the 2-month estimate I gave is hopelessly inadequate, but can't be changed, because it's already in the official marketing literature. Either I piss off the higher-ups by changing my estimate, risking a bad review and/or missing my bonus, or I do a lot of unpaid overtime. I've realized that a lot of overtime is not the mark of a bad developer, or the mark of a "passionate" one - it's the product of a toxic culture.
And yeah, a lot of this stuff is covered under (variously) XP, "agile," SCRUM, etc., but it's not really that complicated. You don't need a book or a consultant to do it. You just need the corporate will.
The Scotty Rule:
make your best guess
round up to the nearest whole number
double that quadruple that (thanks Adam!)
increase to the next higher unit of measure
Example:
you think it will take 3.5 hours
round that to 4 hours
quadruple that to 16 hours
shift it up to 16 days
Ta-daa! You're a miracle worker when you get it done in less than 8 days.
Typically yes, but I have two strategies:
Always provide estimates as a range (i.e. 1d-2d) rather than a single number. The difference between the numbers tells the project manager something about your confidence, and allows them to plan better.
Use something like FogBugz' Evidence Based-Scheduling, or a personal spreadsheet, to compare your historical estimates to the time you actually took. That'll give you a better idea than always doubling. Not least because doubling might not be enough!
I'll be able to answer this in 3-6 weeks.
It's not called "inflating" — it's called "making them remotely realistic."
Take whatever estimate you think appropriate. Then double it.
Don't forget you (an engineer) actually estimate in ideal hours (scrum term).
While management work in real hours.
The difference being that ideal hours are time without interuption (with a 30 minute warm up after each interuption). Ideal hours don't include time in meetings, time for lunch or normal chit chat etc.
Take all these into consideration and ideal hours will tend towards real hours.
Example:
Estimated time 40 hours (ideal)
Management will assume that is 1 week real time.
If you convert that 40 hours to real time:
Assume one meeting per day (duration 1 hour)
one break for lunch per day (1 hour)
plus 20% overhead for chit chat bathroom breaks getting coffie etc.
8 hour day is now 5 hours work time (8 - meeting - lunch - warm up).
Times 80% effeciency = 4 hours ideal time per day.
This your 40 hour ideal will take 80 hours real time to finish.
Kirk : Mr. Scott, have you always multiplied your repair estimates by a factor of four?
Scotty : Certainly, sir. How else can I keep my reputation as a miracle worker?
A good rule of thumb is estimate how long it will take and add 1/2 again as much time to cover the following problems:
The requirements will change
You will get pulled onto another project for a quick fix
The New guy at the next desk will need help with something
The time needed to refactor parts of the project because you found a better way to do things
<sneaky> Instead of inflating your project's estimate, inflate each task individually. It's harder for your superiors to challenge your estimates this way, because who's going to argue with you over minutes.
</sneaky>
But seriously, through using EBS I found that people are usually much better at estimating small tasks than large ones. If you estimate your project at 4 months, it could very well be 7 month before it's done; or it might not. If your estimate of a task is 35 minutes, on the other hand, it's usually about right.
FogBugz's EBS system shows you a graph of your estimation history, and from my experience (looking at other people's graphs as well) people are indeed much better at estimating short tasks. So my suggestion is to switch from doing voodoo multiplication of your projects as totals, and start breaking them down upfront into lots of very small tasks that you're much better at estimating.
Then multiply the whole thing by 3.14.
A lot depends on how detailed you want to get - but additional 'buffer' time should be based on a risk assessment - at a task level, where you put in various buffer times for:
High Risk: 50% to 100%
Medium Risk: 25% to 50%
Low Risk: 10% to 25% (all dependent on prior project experience).
Risk areas include:
est. of requirement coverage (#1 risk area is missing components at the design and requirement levels)
knowledge of technology being used
knowledge/confidence in your resources
external factors such as other projects impacting yours, resource changes, etc.
So, for a given task (or group of tasks) that cover component A, initial est. is 5 days and it's considered a high risk based on requirements coverage - you could add between 50% to 100%
Six weeks.
Industry standard: every request will take six weeks. Some will be longer, some will be shorter, everything averages out in the end.
Also, if you wait long enough, it no longer becomes an issue. I can't tell you how many times I've gone through that firedrill only to have the project/feature cut.
I wouldn't say I inflate them, so much as I try to set more realistic expectations based on past experience.
You can calculate project durations in two ways - one is to work out all the tasks involved and figure out how long each will take, factor in delays, meetings, problems etc. This figure always looks woefully short, which is why people always say things like 'double it'. After some experience in delivering projects you'll be able to tell very quickly, just by looking briefly at a spec how long it will take, and, invariably, it will be double the figure arrived at by the first method...
It's a better idea to add specific buffer time for things like debugging and testing than to just inflate the total time. Also, by taking the time up front to really plan out the pieces of the work, you'll make the estimation itself much easier (and probably the coding, too).
If anything, make a point of recording all of your estimates and comparing them to actual completion time, to get a sense of how much you tend to underestimate and under what conditions. This way you can more accurately "inflate".
I wouldn't say I inflate them but I do like to use a template for all possible tasks that could be involved in the project.
You find that not all tasks in your list are applicable to all projects, but having a list means that I don't let any tasks slip through the cracks with me forgetting to allow some time for them.
As you find new tasks are necessary, add them to your list.
This way you'll have a realistic estimate.
I tend to be optimistic in what's achievable and so I tend to estimate on the low side. But I know that about my self so I tend to add on an extra 15-20%.
I also keep track of my actuals versus my estimates. And make sure the time involved does not include other interruptions, see the accepted answer for my SO question on how to get back in the flow.
HTH
cheers
I wouldn't call additional estimated time on a project "inflated" unless you actually do complete your projects well before your original estimation. If you make a habit of always completing the project well before your original estimated time, then project leaders will get wise and expect it earlier.
What are your estimates based on?
If they're based on nothing but a vague intuition of how much code it would require and how long it would take to write that code, then you better pad them a LOT to account for subtasks you didn't think of, communication and synchronization overhead, and unexpected problems. Of course, that kind o estimate is nearly worthless anyway.
OTOH, if your estimates are based on concrete knowledge of how long it took last time to do a task of that scope with the given technology and number of developers, then inflation should not be necessary, since the inflationary factors above should already be included in the past experiences. Of course there will be probably new factors whose influence on the current project you can't foresee - such risks justify a certain amount of additional padding.
This is part of the reason why Agile teams estimate tasks in story points (an arbitrary and relative measurement unit), then as the project progresses track the team's velocity (story points completed per day). With this data you can then theoretically compute your completion date with accuracy.
I take my worst case scenario, double it, and it's still not enough.
Under-promise, over-deliver.
Oh yes, the general rule from long hard experience is give the project your best estimate for time, double it, and that's about how long it will actually take!
We have to, because our idiot manager always reduces them without any justification whatever. Of course, as soon as he realizes we do this, we're stuck in an arms race...
I fully expect to be the first person to submit a two-year estimate to change the wording of a dialog.
sigh.
As a lot said, it's a delicate balance between experience and risk.
Always start by breaking down the project in manageable pieces, in fact, in pieces you can easily imagine yourself starting and finishing in the same day
When you don't know how to do something (like when it's the first time) the risk goes up
When your risk goes up, that's where you start with your best guess, then double it to cover some of the unexpected, but remember, you are doing that on a small piece of the project, not the whole project itself
The risk goes up also when there's a factor you don't control, like the quality of an input or that library that seems it can do everything you want but that you never tested
Of course, when you gain experience on a specific task (like connecting your models to the database), the risk goes down
Sum everything up to get your subtotal...
Then, on the whole project, always add about another 20-30% (that number will change depending on your company) for all the answers/documents/okays you will be waiting for, meetings we are always forgetting, the changes of idea during the project and so on... that's what we call the human/political factor
And again add another 30-40% that accounts for tests and corrections that goes out of the tests you usually do yourself... such as when you'll first show it to your boss or to the customer
Of course, if you look at all this, it ends up that you can simplify it with the magical "double it" formulae but the difference is that you'll be able to know what you can squeeze in a tight deadline, what you can commit to, what are the dangerous tasks, how to build your schedule with the important milestones and so on.
I'm pretty sure that if you note the time spent on each pure "coding" task and compare it to your estimations in relation to its riskiness, you won't be so far off. The thing is, it's not easy to think of all the small pieces ahead and be realistic (versus optimistic) on what you can do without any hurdle.
I say when I can get it done. I make sure that change requests are followed-up with a new estimation and not the "Yes, I can do that." without mentioning it will take more time. The person requesting the change will not assume it will take longer.
Of course, you'd have be to an idiot not to add 25-50%
The problem is when the idiot next to you keeps coming up with estimates which are 25-50% lower than yours and the PM thinks you are stupid/slow/swinging it.
(Has anyone else noticed project managers never seem to compare estimates with actuals?)
I always double my estimates, for the following reasons:
1) Buffer for Murphy's Law. Something's always gonna go wrong somewhere that you can't account for.
2) Underestimation. Programmers always think things are easy to do. "Oh yeah, it'll take just a few days."
3) Bargaining space. Upper Management always thinks that schedules can be shortened. "Just make the developers work harder!" This allows you to give them what they want. Of course, overuse of this (more than once) will train them to assume you're always overestimating.
Note: It's always best to put buffer at the end of the project schedule, and not for each task. And never tell developers that the buffer exists, otherwise Parkinson's Law (Work expands so as to fill the time available for its completion) will take effect instead. Sometimes I do tell Upper Management that the buffer exists, but obviously I don't give them reason #3 as justification. This, of course depends on how much your boss trusts you to be truthful.
Whilst answering “Dealing with awful estimates” posted by Ash I shared a few tips that I learned and personally use to spot weak estimates. But I am certain there must be many more!
What heuristics to use in the scenario when one needs to make a quick evaluation of software project estimate that has been compiled by a third-party (a colleague, a business partner or an external company)?
What are the obvious and not so obvious signs of weak software estimates that can be spotted without much detailed knowledge of task at hand?
A single person having done the estimates, rather than having used consensus based estimation (to fully understand the implied scope of requirements) such as Wideband Delphi.
Especially true if the person doing the estimation is not the person doing the implementation!! - I once worked on a project estimated by someone else as 60 days before any requirements had even been given. Lets just say I was not a happy bunny
No time for documentation.
No time for ramp-up (in terms of learning, and team size).
No list of risks, and their impact to the timescale.
No buffer for the unexpected - in terms of late breaking requirements, and risks.
No one has said it, so I will. The obvious answer is that if you have software schedule estimates then that is a sure sign of unrealistic figures. Yes, there are many methods for estimating software but none of them are accurate in any way, shape or form. What usually happens is that deadlines are set. If the task is over-estimated then extra time is spent making the result better. If the task is under-estimated then something is sacrificed to meet the delivery (like testing and features).
I know this answer isn’t what people want to believe, but estimating is always a guess. More often than not, a developer can’t even predict how much they will accomplish by the end of the day. You are expecting them to guess things months/years down the road on something that they aren’t even sure what is really involved yet.
The only practical answer to your question that isn’t prone to giving unrealistic results would be using a worksheet that comes up with guesses based on previous history at your company. Unfortunately, that will not account for tasks the estimator missed. At least this may give ballpark numbers.
Unless you develop knock offs of the same exact system over and over again, then anyone who thinks they have figured this out is fooling themselves. There are way too many variables involved.
There are two types of estimates: task estimates and project estimates. You can view these as the big and small pictures.
Project estimates are necessarily high level (granularity no smaller than days typically) and must include things like:
High level architecture;
Time for testing;
Ramp up times;
Defect processes;
Time for documentation;
Relevant training;
Assumptions;
Dependencies (eg team A can't do what they need to until team B delivers phase 1);
Critical path (which pieces are likely to determine if the project slips and by how much); and
Risks.
The more of those things that are missing, the more unrealistic (or risky) the estimates.
The second kind of a task estimate, which is typically much lower level. For this kind of estimate it should be simply a task breakdown (with no task being larger than say 5 days).
These don't tend to address the above items but some of them might be relevant, such as assumptions regarding decisions not made yet (eg production hardware). It may also be worth identifying who can and can't do the tasks due to relevant experience, background knowledge or skills (as that person or those persons may end up overcommitted).
Other posts have mentioned the testing time should equal or exceed dev time. I strongly disagree with this. I've seen 8 hour dev tasks result in 100+ hours test time and 80 hour dev tasks result in less than 2 hours of testing. In both cases the testing time was entirely reasonable. The is no absolute correlation between the two. At best, there is a loose connection.
Is the estimate what the management
wanted to be told?
Does the
estimate nicely fit in with the
planned shipment date for the next
release?
Does the management reward
people that give good news more then
people the give bad news?
Was the
estimate prepared before knowing who
would be working on the project?
Did
someone that wanted that bit of
functionally implemented prepare the
estimate?
Is there a history of
software being late?
Is it normal for
developers to be moved onto other
tasks partway though a project?
Have
some or all developers given up on
commenting on bad estimates as a
waste of time?
Count up the number of questions you get “yes” or “maybe” answers.…
If you get mostly “no” answers to the above questions, then it may be worth looking at the estimate in detail to see if it includes the tasks that other people of listed in this thread.
Wow... I really like toolkit's answer.
And I agree that any estimate at all is flawed, because it assumes that the estimator has way more of a clue for how to solve the problem than any estimator actually does when a project gets estimated. However, I think you still need to at least estimate the size of the mountain before you start. Some thought as to whether it's worth trying to do it should precede any endeavor and that's what the essence of an estimate should be.
I did come up with a few more indicators of a dangerous estimate:
No cross-reference - If the estimate can't be validated at least two different ways, it's likely to be unreliable. For example, the last estimates I've done I've been able to break down the work into small feature chunks, and consider how long it's taken our team to do similarly scoped features. Then I was able to look at the sum of these costs and see how big the scope was relative to other projects I've worked on. That's two ways to validate.
The background of the estimator - if this is a software estimate done by a hardware guy who's never written code - be very afraid. More subtle - the closer the estimator's background is to the technology and problem domain of the project, the better.
Detail - as said a few different ways in a few different posts - I like to see detail for both individual features, as well as the tasks needed to complete each feature. Most estimates I see don't show the detail in the formal presentation, but if you ask the person who did the estimate, they should have a file somewhere. Hopefully it's not the back of a paper napkin stained with beer and ketchup. :)
Documented Assumptions - any estimator will have had to make some set of assumptions about the task. These should be documented somewhere, perferably in the formal paperwork. I always get a little worried when I see a short proposal with not many documented assumptions. Either they were thought through and not communicated to the customer, or they were not thought through. I'm not honestly sure which one is worse. It goes without saying that the assumptions should also be reasonable.
Balanced Lifecycle - However the task is broken down, what's the ratio of design, code and test? How about documentation, integration with external systems and post release support? How about those extra things that are so vital (system admins, CM gurus, management effort)?
Slack - I'm sure the corporate daemons of cheapness will come and flay me, but a schedule and a cost should have some slack. If the estimate looks ambitious and agressive to an experienced eye, it is likely to be too low. Estimates are almost never too high.
One good heuristic is to see if test time is roughly the same a development time. That's a good sign for the estimate.
If they can't give you a breakdown of the estimate then that's a bad thing. Usually a sign of lots of little things that may have been forgotten. They don't need to provide the complete original breakdown, just a breakdown like:
requirements
development
testing
packaging and deployment
etc.
They should be using a standard template to calculate their estimate. They don't need a number in every column, but they do the template to list all possible tasks. That way the template can be used to jog peoples's minds when working on the estimate.
If the estimate is overly precise, e.g. 0.25 hour increments, then that, for me, is a bad smell.
If there are things missing like requirements capture, testing, deployment, and handover to any Ops group? If any of those are missing, that's the sort of thing that will come back and bite you.
Edit: One other thing to watch for is the old "perpetually 90% complete" tasks. You get progress update after progress update listing a task as "90% complete". That's not good!
HTH
cheers
Is the compiler of the
estimate available and willing to
discuss it with other senior project
members? If not, that is often a
concern.
Was the estimate sent to the
customer before the experience and
skills of the development staff are
known. Two point estimates may help
but only to some extent.
Before even getting a chance to look at the estimate, you are told that you are committed to delivering all of the functionality described by a specific date.
(Thanks for responding to my question, by the way.)
If you see one or more of these, you may have a bad estimate:
Single point estimates: an estimate should be associated with a range of possible dates or a confidence value
Insufficient granularity of tasks: a large task bucket usually indicates that the functionality is not well understood (which is especially a problem since poorly understood problems are usually under-estimated)
No expression of assumptions and/or risks
Inadequate effort allocated for commonly skipped or underestimated items (e.g. build scripts, documentation, deployment, etc.)
I agree with sateesh, I really like Software Estimation: Demystifying the Black Art by Steve McConnell. He has several checklists which are useful when reviewing and/or preparing estimates.
I totally agree with Dunk, the first sign of bad estimates is the mere presence of a large detailed upfront schedule. Estimates are exactly that, an approximation, otherwise we would call them exactimates. So they should never be used alone in the management of a project.
The most important point to consider is not the accuracy of estimates but the consistency. If a third party were doing estimates for you, then ask to see a history of their successes or failures, speak with their past clients and determine their reliability.
That all being said, from an Agile standpoint, some of the ways we attempt to gain more consistent estimates during a project are;
Use a relative sizing standard (S,M,L,XL) rather than time based (ideal days).
focus on complexity not time
Always use group estimates not single person estimates
Gather estimates frequently throughout the project, generally at the start of each sprint
use feedback from previous sprints in determination of story complexity
track velocity to give meaning to the relative sizing
frequent and early story retrospection to examine/understand any thrashing
If you are dealing with companies that use these estimation methods then, chances are you are going to receive consistent and therefore better results.
Estimates of the form 3, 6, or 12 months (basically any round numbers) reek of guessing. Usually when you guess you pick some round number bigger than you think it will take -- quarters, half a year, etc. -- are the usual suspects. I much prefer estimates in terms of actual development iterations (whatever their size).
What are the obvious and not so
obvious signs of weak software
estimates that can be spotted without
much detailed knowledge of task at
hand?
Estimates which are given without much detailed knowledge of the task at hand are generally not good.
Perhaps a general approach you could take is to check that items in the requirements correspond to those in the estimate. If you want to be very quick check the relative sizes, if there is a 100 word estimate given to a 100,000 word brief it stands no chance of being right.
Also (as others have said) check that analysis, coding, debugging, testing, integration, contingency etc are mentioned. It shows some thought has gone into it.
Having success and sign off criteria at various stages is a great sign. If they have a defined point which is 10% done at least if the estimate is wrong you know early and have a chance to adapt. If there are no checkpoints until “finish” you may not know that you are behind until that date is hit.
How familar is the person giving the estimate with the people doing the work?
I have often seen estimates where there is a generic person doing the work, even though the team is made up of individuals with very different backgrounds. Most likely the tasks and the specialities don't line up perfectly and you get a c++ serverside programmer who ends up doing either your gui or your database... Sometimes the manager of the team doesn't really appreciate the team member's strengths, so if he has been asked to come up with the estimate on his own because his team is busy on the previous project you will find that the work in question is really only suitable for part of the team (not motivating, lack of skills etc)
One other helpful way to evaluate the estimates is to compare it with the actual effort that was spent on previous projects of similar kind. The best data for the comparison would be the effort data of the previous projects that the organization has done. If there is no organizational historical data you can try to benchmark the estimate against industry wide benchmarks.
I would also say if the estimate is presented as single absolute number (say 180 days) then it is not a good sign. A single absolute number would indicate that the estimate is that the task will be finished with 100% probability on the given data. The estimates presented in a range (say 130 to 180 days) would indicate that the range in which task could be completed.
Much of what I have written above I attribute it to the book :
Software Estimation: Demystifying the Black Art
by Steve McConnell
I check the estimates against the man-power. Although not a very accurate heuristic, it's clear if some massive work has just one or two devs assigned to it, that the task was not estimated correctly
A good estimate will have a good breakdown, involving all phases of the project.
It will almost certainly not finish at a convenient date for the business.
It will include risks of various sorts.
It will be presented in terms of confidence intervals, either implicitly (10-12 months) or by using large units (about four quarters).
It will be made by somebody with responsibility for getting the project done, preferably more than one such person.
If there are delays at the start, there will be delays at the end (expressed as 10-12 months from start, or about 1Q2010 if we start now, not something like January 2010 when the project hasn't started yet).
Assumptions and dependencies will be clearly and prominently listed.
Edit: Part of this depends on the stage the project is in. An early but precise estimate is a warning sign, particularly if there is no confidence interval assigned. That reeks of a Procrustean estimate.
Also, watch for other development methodologies. A timeboxed project can have a rigid and arbitrary schedule, but the feature set will be flexible.
Any of the following:
It is one big project and there isn't a short high level strategy described
There isn't a clear, short and concise vision of what wants to be achieve with the project
The project isn't structured around business value being delivered gradually
The team is trying to give "accurate" estimates for a big project, going into (or was done with) a long analysis phase? (changes will come, and will usually affect those estimates in way that can't be easily quantified without yet more big efforts)
There are "detailed" estimates for the whole project (related to previous)
There aren't detailed estimates for the first phase, or there is something wrong in those.
"Four to six weeks", when not accompanied with a breakdown into shorter tasks...
Closed. This question needs to be more focused. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it focuses on one problem only by editing this post.
Closed 3 years ago.
Improve this question
I mean name off a programming project you did and how long it took, please. The boss has never complained but I sometimes feel like things take too long. But this could be because I am impatient as well. Let me know your experiences for comparison.
I've also noticed that things always seem to take longer, sometimes much longer, than originally planned. I don't know why we don't start planning for it but then I think that maybe it's for motivational purposes.
Ryan
It is best to simply time yourself, record your estimates and determine the average percent you're off. Given that, as long as you are consistent, you can appropriately estimate actual times based on when you believed you'd get it done. It's not simply to determine how bad you are at estimating, but rather to take into account the regularity of inevitable distractions (both personal and boss/client-based).
This is based on Joel Spolsky's Evidence Based Scheduling, essential reading, as he explains that the primary other important aspect is breaking your tasks down into bite-sized (16-hour max) tasks, estimating and adding those together to arrive at your final project total.
Gut-based estimates come with experience but you really need to detail out the tasks involved to get something reasonable.
If you have a spec or at least some constraints, you can start creating tasks (design users page, design tags page, implement users page, implement tags page, write tags query, ...).
Once you do this, add it up and double it. If you are going to have to coordinate with others, triple it.
Record your actual time in detail as you go so you can evaluate how accurate you were when the project is complete and hone your estimating skills.
I completely agree with the previous posters... don't forget your team's workload also. Just because you estimated a project would take 3 months, it doesn't mean it'll be done anywhere near that.
I work on a smaller team (5 devs, 1 lead), many of us work on several projects at a time - some big, some small. Depending on the priority of the project, the whims of management and the availability of other teams (if needed), work on a project gets interspersed amongst the others.
So, yes, 3 months worth of work may be dead on, but it might be 3 months worth of work over a 6 month period.
I've done projects between 1 - 6 months on my own, and I always tend to double or quadrouple my original estimates.
It's effectively impossible to compare two programming projects, as there are too many factors that mean that the metrics from only aren't applicable to another (e.g., specific technologies used, prior experience of the developers, shifting requirements). Unless you are stamping out another system that is almost identical to one you've built previously, your estimates are going to have a low probability of being accurate.
A caveat is when you're building the next revision of an existing system with the same team; the specific experience gained does improve the ability to estimate the next batch of work.
I've seen too many attempts at estimation methodology, and none have worked. They may have a pseudo-scientific allure, but they just don't work in practice.
The only meaningful answer is the relatively short iteration, as advocated by agile advocates: choose a scope of work that can be executed within a short timeframe, deliver it, and then go for the next round. Budgets are then allocated on a short-term basis, with the stakeholders able to evaluate whether their money is being effectively spent. If it's taking too long to get anywhere, they can ditch the project.
Hofstadter's Law:
'It always takes longer than you expect, even when you take Hofstadter's Law into account.'
I believe this is because:
Work expands to fill the time available to do it. No matter how ruthless you are cutting unnecessary features, you would have been more brutal if the deadlines were even tighter.
Unexpected problems occur during the project.
In any case, it's really misleading to compare anecdotes, partly because people have selective memories. If I tell you it once took me two hours to write a fully-optimised quicksort, then maybe I'm forgetting the fact that I knew I'd have that task a week in advance, and had been thinking over ideas. Maybe I'm forgetting that there was a bug in it that I spent another two hours fixing a week later.
I'm almost certainly leaving out all the non-programming work that goes on: meetings, architecture design, consulting others who are stuck on something I happen to know about, admin. So it's unfair on yourself to think of a rate of work that seems plausible in terms of "sitting there coding", and expect that to be sustained all the time. This is the source of a lot of feelings after the fact that you "should have been quicker".
I do projects from 2 weeks to 1 year. Generally my estimates are quite good, a posteriori. At the beginning of the project, though, I generally get bashed because my estimates are considered too large.
This is because I consider a lot of things that people forget:
Time for bug fixing
Time for deployments
Time for management/meetings/interaction
Time to allow requirement owners to change their mind
etc
The trick is to use evidence based scheduling (see Joel on Software).
Thing is, if you plan for a little extra time, you will use it to improve the code base if no problems arise. If problems arise, you are still within the estimates.
I believe Joel has wrote an article on this: What you can do, is ask each developer on team to lay out his task in detail (what are all the steps that need to be done) and ask them to estimate time needed for each step. Later, when project is done, compare the real time to estimated time, and you'll get the bias for each developer. When a new project is started, ask them to evaluate the time again, and multiply that with bias of each developer to get the values close to what's really expects.
After a few projects, you should have very good estimates.