Estimate in Story Points
In Scrum, estimating Story Points is a technique used to assess the relative effort required to complete a User Story in a software development project. Story Points are a unit of measure for expressing the overall complexity, effort, and risk involved in implementing a given feature. Here’s a general guide on how to estimate using Story Points:
- Understanding the Story: Before estimating, the development team needs to understand the details and requirements of the User Story. This often involves discussions with the Product Owner and possibly some clarification questions.
- Relative Estimation: Story Points are a way of estimating effort not in terms of time, but in terms of size and complexity relative to other tasks or stories. It’s a comparative approach rather than an absolute metric.
- Using a Scale: Teams typically use a Fibonacci-like sequence (1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21) to assign Story Points. This scale reflects the non-linear nature of estimating larger and more complex stories.
- Define Baseline: To help ensure consistency and reliability in the team’s estimates over time it is helpful to have a baseline. The team discusses and agrees on the number of story points for a few select User Stories. The agreed-upon story points for these User Stories serve as a benchmark for future estimations.
×
Weighted Complexity Estimate:
estimate Story Points
×
Business Logic Complexity Scale
-
Very Low Complexity:
- The business logic is straightforward and simple to understand.
- Requires minimal decision-making or branching.
- Involves basic operations or calculations with few conditions or exceptions.
-
Low Complexity:
- The business logic involves some level of decision-making but is generally clear and easy to follow.
- May include moderate calculations or processing steps.
- Few branching paths or conditions to consider.
-
Moderate Complexity:
- The business logic has several decision points and may involve moderate branching.
- Requires a deeper understanding of the business domain.
- Involves moderate calculations or processing with multiple conditions or exceptions.
-
High Complexity:
- The business logic is complex and involves numerous decision points and branching paths.
- Requires a thorough understanding of the business domain and complex rules or regulations.
- Involves advanced calculations or processing with many conditions or exceptions.
-
Very High Complexity:
- The business logic is highly complex and challenging to comprehend.
- Involves extensive decision-making with multiple layers of branching.
- Requires an expert-level understanding of the business domain and complex rules or regulations.
- Involves advanced calculations or processing with numerous intricate conditions or exceptions.
×
UI Complexity Scale
-
Very Low UI Complexity:
- Minimal complexity in the user interface design.
- Simple layout and navigation.
- Basic user interactions with straightforward functionality.
-
Low UI Complexity:
- Some complexity in the user interface design, but relatively simple.
- Straightforward layout and navigation with minor enhancements.
- Basic user interactions with minor customization options.
-
Moderate UI Complexity:
- Moderate level of complexity in the user interface design.
- Includes some advanced layout and navigation features.
- Offers moderate customization options and user interactions.
-
High UI Complexity:
- Significant complexity in the user interface design.
- Advanced layout and navigation with interactive elements.
- Offers extensive customization options and complex user interactions.
-
Very High UI Complexity:
- Extremely complex user interface design.
- Involves intricate layout and navigation structures.
- Offers advanced customization options and highly interactive user experiences.
×
Data Integration Complexity Scale
-
Very Low Data Integration:
- Minimal integration required with internal data sources.
- Simple data formats or structures within the domain.
- Little to no transformation or manipulation of internal data.
-
Low Data Integration:
- Some integration necessary with internal data sources, but relatively straightforward.
- Basic data formats or structures within the domain with minor transformations.
- Simple mapping between internal data sources.
-
Moderate Data Integration:
- Moderate level of integration required with internal data sources.
- Multiple internal data sources needing integration with some complexity.
- Requires moderate data transformation or manipulation of internal data.
-
High Data Integration:
- Significant integration needed with complex internal data sources.
- Multiple internal data formats or structures requiring integration.
- Involves extensive data transformation or manipulation of internal data.
-
Very High Data Integration:
- Extensive integration required from diverse and complex internal data sources.
- Advanced internal data formats or structures with intricate relationships.
- Complex mapping and transformation processes of internal data.
×
External System Integration Complexity Scale
-
No External Dependencies:
- The system operates independently without any external dependencies.
- No new dependencies introduced.
-
Very Low External System Integrations:
- Minimal integration with existing external systems.
- Only one external system integration.
- Simple data exchange or connection with an external source.
-
Low External System Integrations:
- Some integration with external systems, but limited in number.
- A few external system integrations, typically less than three.
- Basic data exchanges or connections with external sources.
-
Moderate External System Integrations:
- Moderate level of integration with external systems.
- Several external system integrations, ranging from three to five.
- Requires moderate coordination and management of external connections.
-
High External System Integrations:
- Significant integration with external systems, exceeding five.
- Involves extensive coordination and management of external connections.
×
Manual Testing Complexity Scale
-
Minimal Testing Effort:
- Minimal testing required for the system.
- Basic functionality with few or no complex features.
- Simple and straightforward test cases.
-
Low Testing Effort:
- Some testing effort needed, but relatively low.
- Basic functionality with minor enhancements.
- Straightforward test cases with moderate coverage.
-
Moderate Testing Effort:
- Moderate level of testing effort required.
- Several features or functionalities needing testing.
- Requires moderate test case development and coverage.
-
High Testing Effort:
- Significant testing effort required for the system.
- Complex features or functionalities requiring thorough testing.
- Extensive test case development and coverage.
-
Very High Testing Effort:
- Extremely high testing effort expected for the system.
- Complex and critical features or functionalities necessitating rigorous testing.
- Comprehensive test case development and coverage across all aspects.
×
Predictability of the requirements Scale
-
Very Predictable Requirements:
- Requirements are highly stable and well-defined.
- Minimal changes or updates expected during the project.
- Clear and detailed specifications provided upfront.
-
Predictable Requirements:
- Requirements are relatively stable with occasional updates.
- Some changes may occur, but they are generally manageable.
- Reasonably clear specifications provided with some room for interpretation.
-
Moderately Predictable Requirements:
- Requirements may fluctuate over time with occasional significant changes.
- Adaptability required to accommodate evolving requirements.
- Specifications provided with moderate clarity, requiring some clarification.
-
Unpredictable Requirements:
- Requirements are highly volatile with frequent and significant changes.
- Constant adaptation needed to address evolving needs.
- Specifications provided with limited clarity, often requiring frequent adjustments.
-
Highly Unpredictable Requirements:
- Requirements are extremely volatile and prone to frequent and radical changes.
- Continuous adaptation necessary to keep up with rapidly evolving needs.
- Specifications provided with minimal clarity, requiring constant reevaluation.
×
Refactoring due to Technical Debt Scale
-
No Refactoring Required:
- Implementation of the user story does not necessitate any refactoring of existing code.
- Current codebase remains intact with no need for modifications.
-
Minimal Refactoring Required:
- Implementation of the user story may require minor refactoring of existing code.
- Changes are limited in scope and can be easily accommodated.
-
Some Refactoring Required:
- Implementation of the user story requires some refactoring of existing code.
- Changes are moderate in scope and may require restructuring of certain components.
-
Significant Refactoring Required:
- Implementation of the user story necessitates significant refactoring of existing code.
- Changes are extensive and may impact multiple parts of the codebase.
-
Extensive Refactoring Required:
- Implementation of the user story requires extensive refactoring of existing code.
- Changes are substantial and may involve rewriting large portions of the codebase.