Humans can't estimate tasks
As I said in my last blog entry
I’ve been looking at some of the academic research on task time
estimation. Long long ago, well 1979, two researchers, Kahneman and
Tversky described “The Planning Fallacy.”
The Planning Fallacy is now well established in academic literature and there is even a Planning Fallacy wikipedia page. All the other literature I looked at takes this fallacy as a starting point. What the fallacy says is two-fold:
Curiously the literature does show that although human’s can’t estimate how long a task will take, the estimate they produce do correlate with actual time spent on a task. In other words: any time estimate is likely to be too small but relative to other estimates the estimate is good.
Second, it seems the planning fallacy holds retrospectively. If you are asked to record how long you spend on a task you are quite likely to underestimate it. There seems no reason to believe retrospective estimation is significantly more accurate than future estimation.
Something else that comes out of the research is: psychologists and others who study this stuff still don’t completely understand what the brain is up to, some of the studies contradict each other and there are plenty of subtle differences which influence estimates.
Third, although we don’t like to admit it deadlines play a big role in both estimating and doing. If a deadline is mentioned before an estimate is given people tend to estimate within the deadline. People are also quite good at meeting deadlines (assuming no outside blocks that is), partly this is because estimating then doing is a lot about time management. i.e. managing your time to fit within the estimate.
While deadlines seem like a good way of bring work to a conclusion it doesn’t seem a particularly good idea to base deadlines on estimates. Consider two scenarios:
I would love to spend more time digging into this subject but I can’t. Anyone else want to?
Published at DZone with permission of its author, Allan Kelly. (source)The Planning Fallacy is now well established in academic literature and there is even a Planning Fallacy wikipedia page. All the other literature I looked at takes this fallacy as a starting point. What the fallacy says is two-fold:
- Humans systematically underestimate how long it will take to do a task
- Humans are over confident in their own estimates
Curiously the literature does show that although human’s can’t estimate how long a task will take, the estimate they produce do correlate with actual time spent on a task. In other words: any time estimate is likely to be too small but relative to other estimates the estimate is good.
Second, it seems the planning fallacy holds retrospectively. If you are asked to record how long you spend on a task you are quite likely to underestimate it. There seems no reason to believe retrospective estimation is significantly more accurate than future estimation.
Something else that comes out of the research is: psychologists and others who study this stuff still don’t completely understand what the brain is up to, some of the studies contradict each other and there are plenty of subtle differences which influence estimates.
Third, although we don’t like to admit it deadlines play a big role in both estimating and doing. If a deadline is mentioned before an estimate is given people tend to estimate within the deadline. People are also quite good at meeting deadlines (assuming no outside blocks that is), partly this is because estimating then doing is a lot about time management. i.e. managing your time to fit within the estimate.
While deadlines seem like a good way of bring work to a conclusion it doesn’t seem a particularly good idea to base deadlines on estimates. Consider two scenarios:
- Simple estimate becomes a deadline: If we ask people to estimate how long a piece of work will take they will probably underestimate. So if this estimate is then used as a deadline the deadline may well be missed.
- Pessimistic estimate becomes deadline: If people are encouraged, coerced, or scared into giving pessimistic estimates the estimate will be too long. If this estimate is then used as a deadline work is likely to be completed inside the time but there will be "slack" time. The actual time spent on the task may be the same either way but the total elapsed (end-to-end) time will be longer.
I would love to spend more time digging into this subject but I can’t. Anyone else want to?
(Note: Opinions expressed in this article and its replies are the opinions of their respective authors and not those of DZone, Inc.)



Comments
Nicolas Bousquet replied on Mon, 2011/03/21 - 4:14pm
Evidence base scheduling : http://www.joelonsoftware.com/items/2007/10/26.html
This method take care of the correlation between the estimation and the actual time spent. Basically, if last time john said it needed 2 hours and in fact it needed 4 hour, it is likely that if next time John say 3 hour, that the total time needed will be 6 hour.
The guy doing the sizing is taken into account. The factor is personnal. Also only the recent history is used as maybe the efficiency in sizing... or doing the tasks evolve with time.
And last but not least, the model admit that there is always risks. You can't predict the exact time required as maybe some accident will occur, or the task was simpler than expected. So instead of giving a unique date, the model give you an range of day, with a probability than you are finished that day of before.
Obviously if the model predict there is only 13% of chance you are finished at the end of the deadline, you are in trouble.
Shumona Kapil replied on Sun, 2012/02/19 - 9:43am