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."
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