Timeline for Accuracy of Estimates
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
6 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 27, 2012 at 17:58 | comment | added | Andrew Clear | @Zsolt: Can you clarify what you mean by "continuous improvement comes first?" How, if at all, are you fostering this by choosing the longest lead time? Also, are you referring to continuous improvement of your personnel, or continuous improvement to your project? | |
| Aug 26, 2012 at 6:47 | comment | added | Zsolt | @DavidEspina the danger I'm aware of is losing market. If I go with 87 and the competition offers 67 for example, people will go for the 67. Even if the 67 version gets postponed several times they'll stick to it (they won't give up their investment) and won't come for my 87. If I give 66 I put my company in risk, because I have to self fund the additional effort caused by the 87-66. And we got to the risk management topic. | |
| Aug 26, 2012 at 6:38 | comment | added | Zsolt | @aclear16 for me, continuous improvement comes first - with the culture - and its result is reflected in the estimation. | |
| Aug 26, 2012 at 4:35 | comment | added | Andrew Clear | Continually targeting the longest lead time encourages your team to never push themselves, probably increases your costs, and is generally not a good idea. I believe it is as detrimental as continually choosing the shortest lead time. Extremes are usually not good targets. | |
| Aug 25, 2012 at 22:59 | comment | added | David Espina | Is there a danger or penalty in providing, or targeting, the longest lead time, e.g., 87 minutes in this example? | |
| Aug 25, 2012 at 21:48 | history | answered | Zsolt | CC BY-SA 3.0 |