Thank you for reading my content. I appreciate it.
If you like what you're reading, you may want to check out my book Leading developers.
Product development teams often have problems with estimation. The reasons are well known: software is hard, there are too many details to take into account, and no one can consistently consider every aspect at estimation time.
Because of these well-know problems, both individual contributors and their leaders tend to overestimate everything. It is only human to do so and, over time, teams just stop trusting the accuracy of their estimates.
The lack of trust in estimates is tragicomically common in our industry and a good strategy is to remove the process completely.
If no one trusts estimates, what’s the point, right?
Whoever is asking for an estimate – be that product managers, the marketing department, the actual customers (that’s the best option!) – they do so because having a proper timeline is relevant to their work.
So how does one find a balance between stakeholders’ needs and the hard truth that estimation is an unpleasant, nonsense, unproductive process?
At a Latin class, the teacher would tell me virtus in media stat. It translates to “virtue stands in the middle”. It’s the guiding principle that made me accurately estimate many projects over the course of my career. Bear with me, it’ll become clear in a minute.
You can design a process that removes estimation from your daily operations and still gives a good estimate to whoever needs it.
The key is to focus on what makes estimation hard: product development is often unpredictable therefore our estimation capabilities are bad.
I invite you to take a minute or two to think about the situations in which you could safely say “this feature will take X effort” and then you were actually right.
I have spent a great deal of time thinking about this and I found that predicable features show the following characteristics:
Unfortunately, most features do not check off these boxes.
They should though.
A feature built via “a small diff” that went from start to rollout without any problem is the perfect scenario.
The sceptical here would say: it is called perfect scenario because it never happens. I do not disagree with that, but I prefer to apply the following principle instead:
Strive for perfection, but accept that done is better than perfect.
The balance between an ideal and real world scenario is important and it should always be taken into account. Virtus in media stat.
In the ideal world, all features would require “a small diff”, have a perfectly understandable input, and ship to production with no problems.
I know reality is not so simple, but the ideal scenario gives us a clear indication: small diffs are better than large diffs. They lead to short work in progress, and easy deployment.
So striving for perfection in this context means:
What if all the features we develop were as small as possible?
Then they all would exhibit the three characteristics I just discussed… right? And that would result in a perfectly predictable flow!
Here is a trivial example:
Splitting process doesn’t guarantee absolute predictability.
The argument “if every single feature we build takes half a day, we know exactly how long anything takes” is strong though. You’d need way too many things to go wrong for this formula to fail.
The challenge moves away from guesswork and it becomes getting better at breaking down work into small, coherent, deployable chunks of work.
“Estimation done right” means your estimation process is a means to an end.
The goal is to mitigate the unpredictable nature of product development by splitting features.
This process has interesting side-effects on the communication infrastructure of a team, too.
Continuously breaking down big features into smaller parts requires a lot of communication. It is a gym for empathy.
It may be hard to break down a big feature for one reason or another: the product angle, the design one, the technical feasibility, and so on.
These conflicts help team members put themselves in others people’s shoes and bring everyone closer. They can finally see problems from a different perspective. With some practice, they’ll start anticipating others people’s needs.
Team members get closer and collaborate better if they have to break down features all the time.
If that gets you a predictable flow, why wouldn’t you do it? I personally see no downsides.