A method of estimation I’ve used successfully on a bunch of projects over the years goes like this. Estimations are one of four choices:
<hour
<day
<week
<month
I call it “less than estimation” because if a given piece of work is
obviously under an hour, your estimate is <hour
. If it’s
not obvious, you bump it up to <day
. If it doesn’t
obviously fit within a day, bump it up to a <week
. If
you’re not sure it’ll fit into a week, my experience says that it could
take even three weeks, so bump it up to <month.
Finally, if it doesn’t obviously fit into a month, your powers of estimation have been exhausted: break the thing down into smaller tasks that can be estimated. This also applies to the fact that some people may think that a task takes about two weeks, so they don’t want to bump it up to a month. But if it takes 2 weeks, then you can split it into two tasks.
There are a few advantages to making estimates like this:
One consideration is that this can either be considered non-additive (like T-shirt sizing), or can be additive, but needs special software to add them up. E.g. 1 month = 4 weeks, 1 week = 5 days, 1 day = 8 hours, etc. Either works for me. I think on paper organizations like to work without adding up estimates, but in practice that’s what everybody needs anyway.
A handy way to think about the priorities in this scheme is: unit up, split down. I.e. estimates always jump up to the next unit if they grow. But your estimates should never be reduced in unit (by e.g. being pressured by stakeholders), and instead be split into separate estimates, if possible. If it’s easy to split a week up into two days, great! If it’s not, perhaps the week was the right choice after all.