(no title)
BlargMcLarg | 2 years ago
It isn't. Having a team which is both intimately familiar enough with the set of features as a whole, and understands how to use the system to get around the inevitable 'A does it in X while B does it in X*3', are both prerequisites. Suffice to say, with the amount of discussion based around Scrum being done wrong alone, neither of those are even remotely a given. This also doesn't take into account turnover and new features being able to remove a team from meeting those prerequisites at any point.
Too often it just devolves into people raising eyebrows at one another and either it becomes 'X will do it, so X's estimate becomes the value' (why even bother doing poker then) or 'take the average or minimum' which screws over anyone who estimated higher.
IanCal|2 years ago
It identifies a lack of a shared understanding of the task. Or framed differently, it identifies when you probably all have the same expectation and you can move on.
BlargMcLarg|2 years ago
Or we can dive into technicalities where it technically does solve the issue but does it poorly, and just happens to be better than any other system we know (also questionable).
someguydave|2 years ago
sokoloff|2 years ago