Evidence-based scheduling: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 17:12, 2 April 2022

Latest revision as of 07:02, 15 July 2022

(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown)

Line 1:

{{Short description|Software estimation approachbased on data collection and analysis}}

{{Use dmy dates|date=October 2017}}

{{refimprove|date=October 2017}}

Line 10:

Most people, when estimating, measure the time they actually spend on a project – classic Time Accounting categories such as cited in McConnell's ''Software Project Survival Guide''<ref name="SPSG">[https://www.amazon.com/dp/1572316217 Software Project Survival Guide]</ref> do not allow for accounting for non-project activities. While McConnell goes on to include less obvious activities such as holidays, sick days and project support, he and most others identify such as activities to be separately recorded.

However, recording and attempting to budget for secondary activities often leads to political pressure to drop such activities. In practice, people find themselves unable to avoid them and compensate by working overtime. Similarly, as Spolsky points out,<ref name="EBS">[http{{Cite web|url=https://www.joelonsoftware.com/items/2007/10/26.html /evidence-based-scheduling/|title=Evidence Based Scheduling|date=26 –October 2007|website=Joel on Software]}}</ref> your bosses' stories about his fishing trips, or model helicopter, are both a time-sink and politically dangerous to put on a time-reporting system.

The key insight in evidence-based scheduling is that the only thing which needs measuring is the actual delivery of tasks. Over time, it is assumed that all other distractions will average out. For the purposes of estimation, variations due to interruption will show up as inaccuracies in estimation and will be compensated for by statistical analysis. The reasons for anomalies may come out if the organisation wishes to dig deeper into why people have irregular estimates.