Hey SAFe, Stop Trying to Turn Story Points into Hours. Just Stick with Hours Already!

The History and Purpose of Story Points in Agile

Story points are a cornerstone of agile project management. Developed as an alternative to time-based estimates, they allow teams to estimate effort based on relative complexity and uncertainty. This relative estimation empowers teams to forecast their capacity (velocity) and deliver value iteratively. However, the Scaled Agile Framework (SAFe) proposes normalizing story points across teams, often in terms of hours—a practice that not only undermines core agile principles but also brings bad vibes to the entire agile methodology.

Hints:

• Since it's relative, it cannot be expressed in conventional units of time.
• Since it's estimation, it cannot be accurate. Fibonacci sequence (Story Points) proved useful in relatively sizing complex effort !

The Power of Relative Estimation

Traditional time estimates are often inaccurate and stressful. In contrast, relative estimation allows teams to compare tasks within their backlog. For example, a complex task might be assigned 3 points while a simpler one gets 1 point. This approach fosters team communication and helps them understand their velocity—the amount of work they can complete in a sprint. It’s like comparing apples to oranges, but within your own fruit basket.

Story Points: Not Hours in Disguise

SAFe's prescription to normalize story points to hours is like trying to fit a square peg in a round hole. This not only defeats the purpose of relative estimation but also disrupts the core principles of INVEST criteria for user stories. If a 1-point story equates to an hour, teams might be forced to break down their smallest work unit further, potentially compromising its independence, negotiability, testability, or size. Why use story points at all if they simply represent hours? Just use hours instead! Seriously, if you’re going to turn story points into a covert operation for hours, stop the charade and go full clock mode.

The Fallacy of Comparing Team Velocity

Comparing team velocity based on normalized story points is a classic case of comparing apples to oranges and wondering why your fruit salad tastes weird. Here's why it doesn’t work:

1. Different Estimation Styles: Teams estimate differently. Team A's "3" might be Team B's "1" due to variations in practices, skills, type of work, tools, and technologies. Don't you agree? Comparing velocities based on these inconsistent scales is like comparing your grandma’s cookies to a gourmet bakery—both are delicious, but not the same recipe.

2. The Relativity of Story Points: Story points are inherently relative. They measure effort within a team's context. A complex task for a less experienced team might be a breeze for a seasoned team. Normalization distorts the true effort involved. It’s like saying a mile is the same distance whether you’re running uphill or downhill—context matters!

3. Unique Team Contexts: Teams work in different environments. One team might be building new infrastructure, while another tackles technical debt. These contexts influence effort, making comparisons based on normalized story points as accurate as a weather forecast for next year.

Focus on Team Ownership, Not Comparisons

Agile principles promote continuous improvement within a team, not competition between teams over who can rack up the most story points. The real competition is about delivering value and achieving customer satisfaction, not beating another team's velocity—which, frankly, is none of your business. Focusing on someone else's speed will only make you lose sight of your own goals. It’s like running a race where your true opponent is your own performance. Always strive to do better, and let the client measure success by the value you deliver—not by chasing another team's velocity.

The Gaming Trap and the Importance of Trust

Velocity is easily manipulated. Teams pressured to show improvement can inflate their estimates, rendering the entire metric useless. Agile principles rely on trust and transparency. By focusing on relative estimation within a team's context, we empower teams to deliver value iteratively without falling into the "gaming" trap. It’s like playing poker without cheating—sure, you can sneak a few extra chips, but it ruins the game for everyone.

Conclusion: Keep Story Points Real

Normalizing story points is a misguided practice that undermines the core principles of agile estimation. By embracing relative estimation and focusing on team context, we empower teams to deliver value effectively and continuously improve their agile process. Let’s respect the unique contexts and estimation methods of each team, allowing them to truly embrace agile principles and deliver value effectively.

In the end, story points are meant for relative estimation. Let’s not ruin their purpose by tying them to hours. If you want to measure in hours, just use hours! Keep it simple, keep it agile, and let story points do what they do best—help teams understand their own velocity and improve over time. Because at the end of the day, turning story points into hours is like using a ruler to measure gallons—completely missing the point.