The article jumps from detailed hour-driven estimates, to just duking it out. Why does everything have to be so black or white? Why does it have to jump from hour-level to prophecy?
Here is what works at a project level:
* When estimating, never go any step beyond the Feature level (don't split tasks, most of the time not even stories – just Epics or milestones are enough)
* Do RELATIVE COMPLEXITY estimate. Not time. If <epic1> is a medium, then relative to it, is <epic2> large or small? Stop at that level. Don't split it down any further.
Now compare just one of the epics to past history. That's all you need to estimate the rest of the scope, as it's all relative. It takes not more than a few hours for due diligence.
This jargon suggests that the scope and complexity of your "epics", "milestones" and "features" are abnormally unsurprising and consistent.
Is it because whoever defines them is very good at detailed estimates, or because the work is repetitive and predictable, or because the deadlines are weak and elastic?
I have heard these terms (stories, epics, milestones) a lot. Is there any standard definition for these terms or do they differ from project to project? Any good literature on how to think about them?
Here is what works at a project level:
* When estimating, never go any step beyond the Feature level (don't split tasks, most of the time not even stories – just Epics or milestones are enough)
* Do RELATIVE COMPLEXITY estimate. Not time. If <epic1> is a medium, then relative to it, is <epic2> large or small? Stop at that level. Don't split it down any further.
Now compare just one of the epics to past history. That's all you need to estimate the rest of the scope, as it's all relative. It takes not more than a few hours for due diligence.