Skip to main content

Estimation math made easy via zequals

How precise are your estimates?  Are we inferring false precision with those 5 significant digits?

I saw an hours estimate for a medium size project at our company just the other day.  I don't remember the actual digits, but that's not the point it was a number like:
4145.8 hours
Let's just assume that a team of 7 people will do this project.  How many weeks is this?  I'd guess 4145.8 hr divided by (7 * 40) equals 14.806 weeks.  Or, as a human would say it 15 weeks, give or take.

Are those digits really necessary?  No.  Are they even real?  No.  They are just artifacts of inappropriate rounding or truncation.   There is very little doubt that someone could estimate a 4000 hour project down to the quarter of an hour (the implied accuracy of the 0.8 hour).  And if you think they are so good at estimating that they can distinguish between 45 hours and 50 hours for a portion of this project - well, then keep on trucking to the minute, or second.  There is a problem with your math.

Your solution is EASY.


So here's a solution that makes the calculator obsolete - estimation is an art - learn to use it in your math.  Learn the power of ruthless rounding via the technique called zequals by Rob Eastaway.  Zequals is a math symbol much like the equals sign.  And means much the same thing.  What is on one side of an equation is zequals (or almost equal) to the other side of the equation.  The symbol is: (insert graphic here), but since I don't have one on my keyboard I'm going to use z= to represent zequals.  It is a method of approximating each term in the equation by it's rounded value to one significant digit and then performing the math.  An example right about now would be helpful.

7 * 8 = 56  but 7 * 8 z= 60.   Perhaps another example will help.

13 * 38 = 494 but 13 * 38 z= 10 * 40 z= 400.   Are you thinking this is not very accurate or precise?  Then look here on Periodic Videos for an error graphic. Now, let's try some bigger numbers.

456 * 378 = 172368  however 456 z= 500 and 378 z= 400 and 5*4 = 20 so add in the other zeros, that 4 more zeros and you get 20,0000.  Now do you see how easy zequal makes math of estimates?

Here watch Rob explain it, now that your interested.




Will you start doing your project estimation math using zequals?  I will.  Thanks Rob.  Here's his math book for moms and dads.

See Also:

Relearning to Count - Zero, One, Many

Bob borough - you're my HERO!  The man that taught me so many lessons as a youth - School House Rock!


Post a Comment

Most Popular on Agile Complexification Inverter

David's notes on "Drive"

- "The Surprising Truth about what Motivates Us" by Dan Pink.

Amazon book order
What I notice first and really like is the subtle implication in the shadow of the "i" in Drive is a person taking one step in a running motion.  This brings to mind the old saying - "there is no I in TEAM".  There is however a ME in TEAM, and there is an I in DRIVE.  And when one talks about motivating a team or an individual - it all starts with - what's in it for me.

Introduction

Pink starts with an early experiment with monkeys on problem solving.  Seems the monkeys were much better problem solver's than the scientist thought they should be.  This 1949 experiment is explained as the early understanding of motivation.  At the time there were two main drivers of motivation:  biological & external influences.  Harry F. Harlow defines the third drive in a novel theory:  "The performance of the task provided intrinsic reward" (p 3).  This is Dan Pink's M…

Exercise:: Definition of Ready & Done

Assuming you are on a Scrum/Agile software development team, then one of the first 'working agreements' you have created with your team is a 'Definition of Done' - right?



Oh - you don't have a definition of what aspects a user story that is done will exhibit. Well then, you need to create a list of attributes of a done story. One way to do this would be to Google 'definition of done' ... here let me do that for you: http://tinyurl.com/3br9o6n. Then you could just use someone else's definition - there DONE!

But that would be cheating -- right? It is not the artifact - the list of done criteria, that is important for your team - it is the act of doing it for themselves, it is that shared understanding of having a debate over some of the gray areas that create a true working agreement. If some of the team believes that a story being done means that there can be no bugs found in the code - but some believe that there can be some minor issues - well, …

Team Performance Model - by Drexler and Sibbet

Many of you have all heard of the Tuckman model of team dynamics (Forming, Storming, Norming, Performing).  It was created in 1966 and has become the most popular model for describing team behavior.  Is it time to level up in your mental model of team dynamics?  Are you ready for a richer more functional model?



Introducing the Team Performance Model by Drexler and Sibbet



Orientation - Why am I here?
"Orientation is about understanding the purpose of a team and assessing what it will mean to be a member.  you need to understand the reason the team exist, what will be expected of you and how you will benefit from membership.  In a new team, these are individual concerns, because the group is only potentially a team.  that is why these concerns are illustrated as occurring in your imagination at an intuitive level.  As a team leader it is important to provide time and space for people to answer these internal questions themselves."

Keys to when Orientation challenges are resolve…

Refactoring - examples from the book

Martin Fowler's book Refactoring:  Improving the Design of Existing Code has a simple example of a movie rental domain model, which he refactors from a less than ideal object-oriented design to a more robust OO design. Included in this Refactoring_FirstExample.zip Zip file are the Java source code files of the Movie, Rental, and Customer classes. Along with a JUnit CustomerTest class. Using these example source files you too can follow along with the refactoring that Fowler presents in the first few chapters of his book.


Do You Put “CSM” After Your Name?

I’ve noticed a new trend—people have been gaining titles. When I was younger, only doctors had initials (like MD) after their names. I always figured that was because society held doctors, and sometime priests (OFM) in such high regard that we wanted to point out their higher learning. I hope it was to encourage others to apply themselves in school and become doctors also. Could it have been boastful?

The Wikipedia describes these “post-nominal initials”:
Post-nominal letters, also called post-nominal initials, are letters placed after the name of a person to indicate that the individual holds a position, educational degree, accreditation, office, or honor. An individual may use several different sets of post-nominal letters. The order in which these are listed after a name is based on the order of precedence and category of the order. That’s good enough for me.
So I ask you: is the use of CSM or CSP an appropriate use of post-nominal initials?
If your not an agilista, you may wonder …