(no title)
vp8989 | 2 years ago
I suspect the reason is because management is trying to use numbers to justify bin packing more work to an already oversubscribed team. What never shows up in those project management spreadsheets is the very real and predictable cost of context switching and the increase in mistakes from dealing with a larger amount of in-flight work.
PragmaticPulp|2 years ago
When the estimates and their accuracy become the primary goal, productivity is secondary.
My worst experience with this was a company that valued roadmap accuracy so highly that we were rated on our on-time delivery more than anything else. The inevitable result was heavily padded estimates and teams who carefully avoided doing any more work than necessary (yes, early delivery was technically negative points for your bonus). The pace of work was incredibly slow and methodical, but the company got their metrics optimized. Madness.
The opposite end of this spectrum isn’t great, though. There’s something about teams that pride themselves on no estimates and no deadlines leads a lot of people to spin their wheels forever. I’ve also been stuck on some teams with endless cycles of rewrites and refactors and switching to the latest language or framework every 6 months. We did a lot of work, but didn’t ship a lot.
There is a middle ground that is much nicer than either extreme.
marcosdumay|2 years ago
That middle ground is focusing on releasing. It is done on a completely dimension from the "estimate everything" vs. "estimate nothing" duality of your post. So I really disagree with your characterization of it as "middle ground".
candiddevmike|2 years ago
AnimalMuppet|2 years ago
Look, there's lots of ways this gets done badly. I get that. But the idea itself is not nonsense.
delusional|2 years ago
rqtwteye|2 years ago
In short, the focus on estimates
0x445442|2 years ago
chasd00|2 years ago