What You Need to Know About Agile Relative Estimation

The key to successful Agile planning? Accurate task estimation. But how can you align your team effectively when faced with varying complexities, risks, and effort levels?

Agile relative estimation is a proven method for teams to compare tasks and assign values based on effort, complexity, and risk. In this blog, we’ll explore what Agile relative estimation is, how Team O’Clock’s Effort Estimation Matrix simplifies the process, and why it’s essential for better team alignment.

What is Agile Relative Estimation?

Agile relative estimation compares tasks based on their relative effort, complexity, and risk rather than assigning absolute time values. Instead of estimating hours or days, teams assign comparative values to tasks, making it easier to handle uncertainties and complexities.

Why It Matters

1. Promotes Alignment and Collaboration: Encourages team discussions, ensuring everyone agrees on task complexity and effort.

2. Accounts for Uncertainty: By focusing on relative comparisons, teams can better address unknowns without feeling pressured to commit to exact timeframes.

3. Enhances Prioritization: Teams can allocate resources more effectively by understanding how tasks relate to each other.

3 Key Components of Agile Relative Estimation

1. Effort: How much work is required to complete the task?

2. Complexity: How challenging is the task to implement?

3. Risk: What uncertainties or potential issues might arise?

Agile relative estimation creates a framework for teams to balance these components and plan more confidently.

Understanding Team O’Clock’s Effort Estimation Matrix

The Effort Estimation Matrix by Team O’Clock is a structured tool that simplifies relative estimation during Planning Poker sessions. It helps teams align their understanding of tasks by collectively evaluating effort, complexity, and risk.

How It Works

During Planning Poker, team members estimate tasks using this guided prompt:

"To estimate the work for this task, I believe that the effort is --, the implementation complexity is --, and the risk is --."

The matrix takes these inputs and maps them to Fibonacci numbers, commonly used in Agile estimation. It then guides the team’s story point assignments.

How It Helps Your Team

• Simplifies Estimation: Breaks down complex discussions into manageable components.

• Improves Team Alignment: Ensures all members are on the same page during Planning Poker sessions.

• Adds Structure: Provides a clear framework for assessing effort, complexity, and risk.

How Agile Teams Use the Effort Estimation Matrix

Static vs. Dynamic Matrix

The Effort Estimation Matrix by Team O’Clock is static, meaning it uses default Fibonacci values (1, 2, 3, 5, 8, etc.) and does not adjust dynamically based on team preferences. This simplicity ensures ease of use and consistency.

Mapping the Three Axes

1. Effort: Ranges from low to high levels of work required.

2. Complexity: Covers tasks from simple to highly intricate.

3. Risk: Addresses the range from no risk to significant uncertainties.

Visual Representation

A typical matrix aligns these three axes to Fibonacci values:

• Low effort, low complexity, and no risk = Fibonacci value of 1.

• High effort, high complexity, and significant risk = Fibonacci value of 8 or more.

The structured approach provides teams with a visual guide, streamlining their decision-making during Planning Poker.

Customizing Agile Relative Estimation with Team O’Clock

Custom Vote Values

One of Team O’Clock’s standout features is the ability to adapt vote values to match a team’s unique requirements.

Examples:

• Low Values (e.g., 0.5): Represent tasks with minimal effort, simple complexity, and no risk.

• High Values (e.g., 7): Represent tasks with significant effort, moderate complexity, and some uncertainty.

T-Shirt Sizing Method

In addition to Fibonacci numbers, teams can use T-shirt sizing (e.g., S, M, L) to map tasks to effort, complexity, and risk more intuitively.

For example:

• Small (S): Maps to Fibonacci value 2, indicating low complexity and risk.

• Medium (M): Maps to Fibonacci value 5, reflecting moderate complexity and risk.

• Large (L): Maps to Fibonacci value 8, representing high effort and complexity.

This flexibility allows teams to customize their estimation process while staying true to Agile principles.