How can you use story points to estimate your tasks more accurately?

There is a simple response to this article: You can’t. Unfortunately that’s too few characters for the AI though. So, let me say it again: You can’t.

First, understand that a story point is relative time. For example, is item A likely to take less time, the same time, or more time, than item B? Have the people who will do the work create the estimates. Don’t expose the estimates to management as doing so will result in them being used a performance measures and those being measured will change their behaviors to make the data look good. Don’t expect individual estimates to be “accurate” or “correct”. In fact, expect that the vast majority of estimates will be off by a lot. With all of this being said, per Ram Srinivasan, create estimates to generate a conversation. You don't have to throw out the estimate after the conversation, but don't expect them to be accurate : )

Don't use story points for estimation. It's a concept already outdated and even the creator apologized for have created it. Too much misuse, too much misinterpretation. Probabilistic forecast is better for predictability.

Using story points for task estimation is valuable for aligning the overall understanding and backlog ordering. However, it's crucial to avoid overcomplicating and getting bogged down in relative estimates. In practice, Scrum Masters and developers may sometimes focus too much on relative estimations, and it was in my early career. Sometimes, estimates become commitments, and breaking away from the concept of relative estimates can be challenging after a long, rocky road.

This is going to sound a bit like I’m splitting hairs…story points alone don’t give us better estimates, but shared estimating (like planning poker) can give you better estimates. The reasons are related to the law of averages and the wisdom of crowds. First, the law of averages: ask any one person to estimate, and their estimate is likely to be far off. However, ask multiple people to estimate and then average their estimates, the accuracy of their collective estimate (or consensus response) will improve as the number of estimators increases. The second reason is the wisdom of crowds: ask a diverse group of people to estimate and through their diversity of wisdom they will discuss, debate and be likely to come to a better estimate.

Get away from these numbers please.... The numbers give you an illusion that "....it....reflects the uncertainty and complexity", and give you an illusion of you are avoiding "false precision and overconfidence" Instead of numbers, focus on the understanding. And if you want to express how big/confusing/complex the User stories are - use this sequence 1 (i.e. Small, well understood, and delivers value) TFB (i.e. Too Freaking Big - we need to break this into smaller user stories to get to 1) NFC (i.e. No Freaking Clue - we need to do more discovery or research to get this to TFB)

In some organizations, a task assigned 1 story point might represent a job that takes less than a day to complete (yes, here, I'm comparing them to days). Conversely, in a different setting, 1 story point could equate to a week-long endeavor. The flexibility of story points allows teams to tailor their estimation scales based on the unique dynamics and complexities of their projects, fostering a more context-specific and adaptable approach to task estimation. Above all, it's essential to recognize that the discussion surrounding story points often holds more significance than the numerical value assigned.

Yes fibonacci sequence is one of the common method to assign story point. But, stories should be granular, independent and easily doable. Keeping that in mind after doing initial estimation if story is assigned with 8 or more points. It's advisable to break down original story into multiple granular stories. So, we can deliver it easily.

Gee, more nonsense from the AI, this time on estimates and commitments: “…to estimate how many user stories they can commit to in the next sprint…” Listen, the Developers do not commit to a list of work items but a goal; in Scrum, it is the Sprint Goal. All that matters is that the goal is accomplished in time; no one cares how many work items it took to get there. This is no longer the industrial age, where resource utilization is critical. In a complex environment, shipping more work does not equal creating more value.

Complexities and dependencies can vary between various tasks. Using story points for "capacity planning" may lead to discrepancies between anticipated and actual productivity. Moreover, the fluctuation in the complexity of larger tasks adds further challenges to sprint planning when combined with smaller tasks. It becomes crucial to break down sizable tasks into more manageable components. By splitting tasks, teams can address uncertainties more effectively, allowing for a more accurate assessment of capacity and a smoother adaptation to changing project dynamics. In such cases, the team can focus on identifying the most valuable tasks rather than getting bogged down by commitments in the form of rigid estimates.

If the team completed blah story points their velocity is blah story points per week. Meaningless. Suppose they completed 100 story points? Or 1,000 story points? Did they deliver value? Did they meet a business outcome? This whole story point fixation, and the desire to equate story points with time, seems like a Taylorism hangover. Getting more points done doesn't mean anything of value was created.

Once story points are assigned to the user stories in the product backlog, we revisit them during the sprint planning meeting because we might have some new information, dependencies clarified or new complexities added. Then based on history data which is velocity here team plans for the sprint. But it is little tricky for a newly formed team or a team where we have lot of new team members, essentially saying as per the Tuckman's model team has not reached performing stage yet. But with each iteration done, we grow towards that.

"Once the team has assigned story points to *all* the user stories in the product backlog..." ???? ?? It doesn't get any more waterfall that this!!!

DON'T. Run away. Seriously. (sidenote - this is AI generated content, and AI does not understand why people created story points).

From my point of view, a burn-down chart is the most unnecessary tool ever. It doesn't help anyone except perhaps those who are fond of micromanagement, usually in management positions. It's much more important to set an achievable sprint or iteration goal and work as a team to reach that goal. This means if my sprint goal includes about 3 PBIs, then my main focus is to get those done. If there are more PBIs in the sprint, that's fine; deal with them as soon as you can guarantee achieving the sprint goal.

Ah, story points, the crystal ball of Agile! Some people fall into the trap of meticulously matching them with actual efforts, as if being agile is about fortune-telling in complex environments. Let's be honest: it's like trying to nail jelly to the wall. Agile thrives on adaptability, not on the illusion of forecast precision. Rather than squandering time fine-tuning estimates for an unpredictable future, let's focus on what Agile indeed champions: delivering value and embracing change.

Story points: Estimate smarter, deliver faster! Compare tasks, plan sprints, track progress, and learn from feedback. Benchmark, and set realistic goals. Value delivered, customers happy!

If you have already started using story points, then try not to compare yourself with other teams, do not set goals for the number of story points in a sprint, and do not set goals for planned/burned story points. Relevant comparison of the item with already estimated items will help to avoid inflation. But as already written, don’t get hung up on improving story points. Look at the value, look at the opportunity to deliver, look at the TEAM's ability to improve.

My opinion is that story points are partially a means to getting to velocity. I use velocity as a measure of a team's health, not their performance. It's like a person's blood pressure. If velocity moves too much in either direction it's an indicator that something has or is changing within the team and should be monitored.

Story points don't necessarily help to improve your product or generate more value. Most of the time, story points are a rough estimation of the complexity or difficulty of a task. The term 'guesstimation' is quite accurate when it comes to story points. So, if your team had a velocity of 20 story points in the last sprint and 'only' 15 in the current one, it doesn't mean you aren't improving. It simply indicates that the deliverables were less complex or complicated to turn into value. That said, try to measure value instead of story points. On the other hand, estimation can help in breaking down Product Backlog Items into smaller pieces, as it encourages you to wrap your head around the task and figure out how to get started with it.

Estimates in agile development are often criticized for enabling misuse, like Taylorism and micro-management. Critics argue they contradict agile principles like self-management and outcome focus. However, I propose a different perspective: estimates can be valuable for teams if we focus less on the numbers. They help ensure team alignment on the purpose, scope, and approach of work. The numeric aspect of estimates should be secondary, primarily for internal team use, not for external reporting or control.

Solicit feedback from team members, stakeholders, and end-users to validate task estimates. Actively seek input from those directly involved in task execution to ensure alignment between estimations and reality. Before finalizing task estimates, we engage in discussions with relevant stakeholders to gather their input and validate our assumptions. This collaborative approach fosters transparency and builds confidence in the accuracy of our estimations. Treat task estimation as an iterative process that evolves with experience and feedback. Regularly review and refine estimation techniques, tools, and practices based on lessons learned and changing project dynamics.

Ditch crystal balls for consistent scales, bite-sized tasks, and team wisdom! Story points shine when you understand effort, not time. Break down giants, learn from the past, and refine with each sprint. Remember, it's a team effort, not a solo act. So grab your poker chips, embrace the unknown, and watch your estimates hit the bullseye!

If we follow fibonacci sequence for estimating story points I would say we can't estimate tasks based on story points as I have seen 4hrs task in 1pt story and also 8hrs task in other 1pt story. If you want to corelate properly estimation of tasks against story points then follow T-Shirt Sizing like below XS < 4hrs S <1day M 1-2days L 3-5days XL >5days In this way of estimation, story points are directly depends on sum of duration of individual tasks.

Understand that estimations are just that. Sometimes you accept a lack of accuracy. Other times you desire more accuracy. Decomposing the work to be done or the solution to be built in smaller parts helps with this. Key here is that decomposition is done by the people who will do the work. Given your context it could be helpful to also give an indication of the accuracy of your estimation, listing assumptions and (unmitigated-) risks.