The case against #NoEstimates: the bottom line

I’ve now methodically presented the case against #NoEstimates in three different lights: from a common sense standpoint, from the perspective of the solid reasons why estimates are useful, and by examining the various frequent talking points used by NoEstimates advocates.  Looked at from any of these angles, NoEstimates comes up way short on both its core ideas and business practicality.

Aside from these issues of substance, let’s look briefly at the behavior of the NoEstimates proponents. Blunt as it may be, here’s my summary of the behaviors I’ve seen across most NoEstimates posts and tweets:

  • Presenting, and repeating via redundant tweets month after month, fallacy-riddled arguments consisting primarily of anecdotal horror stories, jibes at evil management, snide cartoons, and vague declarations that “there are better ways.”
  • Providing little or no detail or concrete proposals on their approach; relying (for literally years now) on stating that “we’re just exploring” or “there are better ways”
  • Consistently dodging substantive engagement with critics, and at times openly questioning whether critics should even have a voice in the discussion. If NoEstimates avoids engaging actively in the marketplace of ideas and debate, why should their arguments be taken seriously? Real progress in understanding any controversial topic requires we do more than state and restate our own views, but actually engage with those who disagree.
  • Continuing to use discredited examples and statistics, or even blatant misrepresentation of the stated views of recognized authorities, to help “prove” their case.
  • Frequent use of epithets to describe NoEstimates critics: “trolls”, liars, “morons”, “box of rocks”, and more.

I pointed out in my introduction that the lofty claims of the NoEstimates movement (essentially, that software development can and should be an exception to the natural, useful, and pervasive use of estimates in every other walk of life) carry a heavy burden of proof. Not only have they failed to meet that burden, they’ve barely attempted to, at least not the way that most people normally set about justifying a specific stance on anything.

But aside from style, let’s return to the substance of the issue. Here’s my take, as backed by specific examples over the course of these blog posts: estimates are an important part of the process of collaboratively setting reasonable targets, goals, commitments. Indeed, whether estimates are explicit or implicit, they’re a reality. I see them as an unavoidable and indispensable factor in business.

[Read more…]

The case against #NoEstimates, part 3: NoEstimates arguments and their weaknesses

I’ve spent the last two blog posts introducing the #NoEstimates movement, first discussing what it appears to espouse, and presenting some initial reasons why I reject it. I then covered the many solid reasons why it makes sense to use estimates in software development.

This time, let’s go through, in detail, the various arguments put forward commonly by the NoEstimates advocates in their opposition to estimates and in their explanation of their approach. Full disclosure: I’ve attempted to include the major NoEstimates arguments, but this won’t be a balanced presentation by any means; I find these arguments all seriously flawed, and I’ll explain why in each case.

Here we go, point by point:

  • “Estimates aren’t accurate, and can’t be established with certainty”

Let’s use Ron Jeffries’ statement as an example of this stance:

“Estimates are difficult. When requirements are vague — and it seems that they always are — then the best conceivable estimates would also be very vague. Accurate estimation becomes essentially impossible. Even with clear requirements — and it seems that they never are — it is still almost impossible to know how long something will take, because we’ve never done it before. “

But “accurate” is simply the wrong standard to apply to estimates. It’d be great if they could be totally accurate, but it should be understood at all times that by nature they probably are not. They are merely a team’s best shot, using the best knowledge available at the time, and they’re used to establish an initial meaningful plan that can be monitored and adjusted moving forward. They’re a tool, not an outcome. As such, the benefits of estimates, and their contributions to the planning and tracking process, exist even without them being strictly “accurate” per se. These benefits were itemized in my last post.

Knowing the future precisely isn’t what estimating is about, actually. It’s a misunderstanding and a disservice to think it is. Here’s why. [Read more…]

Towards a more balanced list of content about #NoEstimates

Both my readers will have noticed there’s been a fairly large gap between my posts here, as life (picnic, lightning, and all that) has intervened. Like J.D. Salinger, however, I have continued writing drafts on various topics, and I plan to post more in the coming months.

My past posts here have often delved into a favorite theme of mine: that IT people tend to go to extremes, often rejecting something useful (an approach, a technology, a tool) simply because it has downsides. Such rejection is at times emotional and even self-righteous; we can get so caught up in it that we fail to look at a topic at all evenhandedly, let alone dispassionately.

No better case example along these lines has come along in the past year than the active and contentious #NoEstimates debate on Twitter and in the blogosphere. I’ll have a much more detailed post soon about my objections to the #NoEstimates approach overall (full disclosure: I’m one of its most vocal critics), but right now, let’s focus on one aspect of the relentless advocacy I see in the hashtag’s proponents: its lack of evenhandedness.

Specifically, proponents of #NoEstimates insist repeatedly and proudly that they’re “exploring”; recently, one major advocate tweeted out a call for links to posts about the topic (“I’m gathering links to #NoEstimates content”) so that these could be collected and posted. Yet, it turned out that only posts advocating one side of the issue would be included, even though the resulting list of links was then touted to people who might be “interested in exploring some ideas about #NoEstimates.” When challenged on this dubious interpretation of the meaning of “exploring”, the advocate then defiantly attached a disclaimer: “Warning! There are no links to “Estimate-driven” posts”. In short, making the exploration balanced wasn’t even remotely his goal.

Advocates can use their own blog for whatever purposes they want, of course. Yet, there’s an interesting split going on here: staunchly claiming to be “exploring”, while rejecting the inclusion of any summarizing or critical posts, and then sneeringly labeling all such posts as “estimate-driven.” There couldn’t be a clearer case study of IT black-and-white-ism, them vs us. Explore all you want, this behavior says, as long as you’re doing it on my side of the issue and on my terms. What, there’s a post that attempts to summarize both sides of the argument? Not interested.

[Read more…]