In a Nutshell

When sizing a piece of work we are trying to assess how ‘big’ the work is, how complex it is, and how many parts make up the whole.

Once we have done this we can consider the velocity at which the team is able to sustain the work. This will be the number of issues (of a certain size and complexity) that they are able to sustainably deliver in a particular timeframe.

To do this accurately takes time, effort and resources. Therefore, we need to consider how accurate our sizing needs to be. For example, would you put the same amount of effort into sizing issues that are in the ‘Future’ column of your roadmap compared to those that are in the columns of ‘Now’ or ‘Next’? Probably not – what we would need to consider is the appropriate level of accuracy needed and at what point the amount of effort we are putting in to right-sizing starts suffering from the law of diminishing returns.

Issues that are closest to us require particular levels of accuracy. Generally, the smaller and more granular something is, the more likely we are to be able to accurately assess its size. Therefore rigour and discipline is required to reduce the amount of complexity surrounding the issue and the number of dependencies involved.

In order to increase our confidence in the size we have assigned an issue, we need to ensure we have considered the opinion of our team (the people who will be doing the work) and people with experience of the issue under scrutiny. We can also compare the size of this issue against similar past issues.

Related Practices