Slashdot Mirror
How can a Developer Estimate Times?
SubliminalVortex wonders: "Many times in the past, I have been asked on 'how long' it would take to implement a certain features/fixes in a product. What's interesting is that many times, certain 'fixes' is adjusting the wording/placement of the items in question; in other cases, users want the product to do everything they ever imagined, since it already started by following their line of thought. From there, the problem continues. From the user interface, people 'imagine' and think that 'oh, it would be easy if...' and scenarios occur, not only internally from the company using the product, but the clients themselves. Usually, several good ideas are there, but estimating times is a pain in the arse if you have a platform you're writing code for which has no documentation. How do coders estimate times to their bosses? If I know the answer outright, I'll give it, but in some cases, I don't how much time I'll take from other developers *because of the lack of documentation*. I'm going to have to bring in my D&D dice next week just to start."
The only way to tell is to design the feature, then guesstimate how long each part of the process will take (by comparing it to how long similar problems have taken). If there's a step you're unsure of, you need to be sure of it to give a reliable estimate. Then double it- something will go wrong, and its better to deliver early than late.
I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
The Estimator's Rule:
It always takes longer than estimated, even after accounting for the Estimator's Rule.
Two things really... you have to break your tasks down into small tasks with known dependencies to the point you *can* estimate times to do things. Once you get that far, experience (gut feeling) will contribute. After that, you give an optimistic and pessimisitic times to your boss. Example: If all these assumptions hold and these other three things happen on time, then the time estimate is one week. If this, this, or this doesn't pan out as expected, then the time estimate is three weeks.
For the most part, your ability to give an estimate on a change is a matter of experience. General experience will give you a rough idea of how long it would take to implement some random feature. Specific experience with the system in question will give you a much more refined ability to make an estimate. If you can't make an estimate, or you can only make a rough estimate, be upfront about it. Tell your manager or the customer (if you're the one working directly with the customer) that your estimate is very rough, and try to add as much buffer time as possible. Also, don't get into granular estimates when you can only give a rough SWAG (Some Wild-Ass Guess). If you think it'll take you an hour, say a day. If you think it'll take you a day, say three. If you think it'll take you three days, say a week (experience will tell you how much buffer to add). If you don't have enough experience with the system to make a good estimate, ask your co-workers for help. It's always better to under-promise and over-deliver than the other way around. Besides, while you may end up over-estimating some feature, chances are you also underestimated another one and the extra buffer time you don't need for feature A will be invaluable to finishing feature B.
To help you make better estimates, you should make sure you get a solid set of requirements from your customers. Time should be spent with the customer to determine exactly what it is they want (they may not be able to articulate it clearly), and whether or not there's already a solution they could use if they're only willing to change their process. Avoid telling the customer at that point whether something is "easy" or "hard" (and definitely ignore them when they suggest something will be easy -- they don't know the inner workings of the code, so how will they know if it's hard or easy? Changing a piece of text may look trivial, but may involve a number of external factors such as localization or legal that would turn a 5 minute fix into a two month battle). Take what you've learned, distill it down into a solid set of requirements, and take that back to the customer for sign-off. Once they've signed off, they don't get to change their mind any more for this cycle (however long that may be -- days, weeks, months, or even years, though hopefully not nearly as long as that). Then you get rough estimates from the developers based on their gut feelings and knowledge of the code base, and have them investigate deeper to solidify those estimates. At that point, you have enough to build a schedule, but allow for buffer time! A developer's 8 hour day may not be 8 full hours of coding. It may be 4 hours of coding, two hours of meetings, an hour for lunch, and an hour of "filler" for the cost of task-switching depending on how the coding hours and meeting hours overlap. Based on your experience with past projects, you should have a good idea of how much time per day a dev actually gets to spend on coding and use that to build your schedule. For example, developer estimates are all in 8 hour day increments, but you know from experience that developers average 6 hours per day of productive work. That means a 5 estimated days will actually take 6.7 real days, so use that as your buffering criteria. (BTW, six hours of productive work is actually high. In most cases, it's really closer to 4 or 5.)
Finally, don't forget QA. Just because a developer has confidence that he can implement a specific feature in one hour doesn't mean it won't take QA a week to verify all of the ramifications of that change. You really need to have your QA team working in lock-step with your dev team. Your dev team should write technical specs on the features, and your QA team should estimate impact off of those. The "agile" disciplines that are en vogue lately try to incorporate testing directly into the development process, which is good. However, that means that developers will be in charge of including QA costs on their estimates, which developers are usually bad about doing
Time estimation is part of project managment. A good course in project management will give you the tools to effectively deal with these situations.
Short and sweet, when asked to give an estimate (any estimate) ask them if they want the quick and dirty estimate now (which may be off by 1,000% or more) or if they would like a more accurate estimate. If they want the quick and dirty then use whatever method you use now to give them the estimate. If they want an accurate estimate then tell them you'll research the current state of the project, the development effort required for functions x, y, and z, and the resources required to accomplish the effort.
Then follow a good estimating process - there are many available in many books about this subject. In my case generally new projects are very similar to older projects, and are all built on the same foundations so it's easy to start with a list of tasks to get from point A to B, and list the resources and dependencies for each task. Link them all together, and then go to the boss and say, "Assuming that we have these people and these reources, the project will be completed x weeks from kick-off."
When (not if) the boss says, "Well it needs to be done by this date!" Calmy reply with, "We can meet that goal by either scaling the work back, or increasing manpower. Which is more suitable for this situation?" and so on.
The one thing you don't want to do (that all too many software engineers do on a regular basis) is over estimate or underestimate the work required. In either case the customer (generally your boss) learns not to trust your estimates. This is bad on so many levels, and is the main reason that so many software engineers work more than 40 hours per week on a regular basis - especially those that overestimate the time required trying to combat this (paradoxically).
A more accurate estimation process will include a frank discussion of risk and risk management. "This schedule is good as long as we assume the code base is well documented and follows reasonable coding practises." Then find out what the customer wants you to do if you find this assumption to be false. Give them the whole scenario - the risk may be low, but if the assumption proves wrong then perhaps the project schedule or resources just tripled. That may be too great a risk to take even if it's unlikely - so how do we mitigate that risk?
I could go on, but really this is a basic question that millions of people have asked for thousands of years. There are much better and more thorough resources to answer it. Visit your local library if your company isn't willing to send you to a simple three day project management seminar. They won't teach you much that's new, but they'll tie it all together and give you the tools you need to communicate effectively with others - most of the important stuff is being able to say, "I'll get back to you on that by thursday."
-Adam
Don't do it!
I'm serious. If we've learned anything over the past forty years, it's that trying to estimate software development time is a waste of time. Why? Well, for one things, bugs. To know how long it would take to find and fix them, you'd have to know what the problem was, which means the hard part's done. For another thing, specification flux. Most reasonable project specifications for non-trivial projects don't provide enough information to accurately predict how long it will take to code. And producing such specs, and using them, will take longer than the development would have taken in the first place. And, if that's not enough, think of Dilbert. Specifically, the one where his boss asks him "Will there be any unforeseen problems?"
I once told a client (a dot com) "I'll tell you how long this will take if you can tell me what you stock will be worth six months from now, four months after you IPO. And I'll be more accurate than you will. If you'd rather, you can tell me when the next two-day rainstorm will be." He hemmed and hawed, and basically refused to give any sort of number whatsoever. I said "Good, it looks like we've got a nice honest relationship going here. Neither of us is willing to lie to the other, or claim to know something we don't. So let's start prioritizing these features for the mock up."
Let me say it again: Don't even attempt to estimate development times.
So what should you do instead? Incremental development with frequent opportunities for feedback. Ideally, the users should be able to play with a nightly-build prototype whenever they want from the first week or so on. If they ask for a time estimate, tell them it will be done when they're happy with the result, and don't want anything more, or they're unhappy with the rate of progress, and call the whole thing off.
But don't lie to them, no matter how hard they push.
--MarkusQ