Re: [discovery] Story point estimations

I need to take time to read the full page, lot of interesting information. And since it is sharing time... On one of my previous team, we used a purely relative sizing. During estimation, we sorted tasks from the simplest one to the most complex, without attributing any numeric size (or t-shirt or whatever). Once we had everything sorted, we looked for jump in complexity. For example, the first few tasks seem to have roughly the same complexity, and suddenly the next task in the list is clearly much more complex. At this point, we have groups of tasks of similar complexity. The first group is a complexity of 1, the second of 2, and so on, following Fibbonacci. This worked really well for us. Remarks: * as human, we tend to be fairly bad at absolute measurement, but we tend to be fairly good at relative measurement ("this is heavier than that" vs "this is 4 kg and that is 3.5 kg") * when doing group estimation, absolute estimation tend (for us at least) to generate much.more discussion and disagreement * this system might seem to be easily biased by the kind of tasks we have in our backlog, but in practice, it is fairly stable I hope this give idea to someone else... On 27 Jan 2016 08:24, "Stas Malyshev" <smalyshev(a)wikimedia.org> wrote: