Subscribe
Share
Share
Embed
The Certified PMP® Audio Course is your on-the-go companion for mastering the Project Management Professional exam. Each episode delivers clear, practical insights into the concepts, tasks, and real-world scenarios you’ll face, helping you study smarter and build confidence. Whether you’re commuting, exercising, or taking a break, tune in to stay focused, motivated, and ready to pass the PMP® with confidence.
Estimating in agile exists to align expectations, help sequence work by value and risk, and produce responsible forecasts that guide decisions rather than bind them. Emphasize that estimation is a planning signal, not a firm commitment: its purpose is to surface conversations about trade-offs and to reveal uncertainty so leaders can choose priorities with eyes open. When you explain this in an exam or a meeting, stress that estimates speed decisions and enable earlier learning, not guarantee dates.
Because estimation is a signal, candidates should avoid treating point totals as promises; tests often probe this confusion by using scenarios that penalize converting points directly into fixed deadlines. Teach estimation as a collaborative input to negotiation: it clarifies what might block delivery and how much uncertainty a piece of work contains. The practical benefit is faster, evidence-based tradeoffs that prioritize learning and value while preserving the team’s ability to adapt when reality shifts.
Use estimation to reveal hidden risk and to enable earlier validation. When an item looks large or uncertain, the estimate prompts a spike or focused discovery so the team can convert unknowns into learned facts. That learning reduces the chance of expensive rework and helps sequence risky work earlier. Frame estimation as a tool that turns guesses into testable hypotheses and schedules into ranges, which better reflect the reality of complex delivery than single-point predictions.
Relative sizing starts by comparing items against a known reference rather than sizing in absolute hours; this is faster and more robust early in discovery. Use simple techniques like T-shirt sizes, Fibonacci sequence points, or bucket sorting to place items relative to each other, and always pick a reference item that everyone understands. Relative sizing capitalizes on pattern recognition: people judge comparatively more reliably than they estimate absolute durations, so comparisons yield quicker consensus and more consistent planning inputs.
Keep items similarly shaped to make relative sizing meaningful—compare apples to apples, not apples to skyscrapers. When a user story or task is much larger than the typical card, resist the urge to guess its size; split it into smaller vertical slices that produce usable increments. Record the rationale for sizing decisions so later debates focus on new evidence rather than rehashing old assumptions, and revisit sizes when discovery or test results change your knowledge about complexity.
Relative sizing patterns benefit from short recorded notes: why was this item judged medium, what dependencies were visible, and what unknowns remain. That rationale prevents repeated re-estimation fights and helps the team calibrate over time. The key is speed and usefulness—sizing helps plan and prioritize, so keep it light, collective, and transparent rather than a heavy forecasting ritual that delays progress and fosters false precision.
Planning poker is a group estimation technique that reduces anchoring and captures diverse perspectives: each participant silently selects a value, reveals simultaneously, discusses large deltas focusing on assumptions and acceptance criteria, then revotes until estimates stabilize. The process privileges quick, focused discussion about uncertainty rather than long, forensic analysis that stalls work. Stop when votes converge; the goal is a defensible planning input, not an exact science. Avoid looping forever in search of a perfect number.
During planning poker emphasize assumptions and risk drivers rather than debating decimal nuances; ask why someone chose a higher or lower number and let that surface unknowns to be addressed as spikes or acceptance clarifications. Beware anti-patterns: anchoring on the first number, senior-bias where high-status voices dominate, and naive averaging of disparate votes that obscures real disagreement. The technique works best when used as a prompt for learning and alignment, not as an arbiter of individual merit.
Group estimation benefits from timeboxing and a facilitator who keeps discussions tight and focused on the acceptance criteria that shape complexity. Capture decisions and unresolved questions as backlog tasks so the team can address them without derailing the session. When estimates remain uncertain despite discussion, create a short spike to gain facts rather than inflate estimates arbitrarily; learning often beats guessing in both speed and cost.
Estimating non-software and operations work follows the same principles of relative sizing but leans on checklists and historical patterns where repeatability exists. For recurring operational tasks use simple historical averages and a checklist of steps to make estimates repeatable, and express complexity in relative terms so teams plan capacity realistically. Visualize queues and handoffs to expose waiting time that pure effort estimates would miss—operations often hides delay outside direct work time.
Size non-software items by complexity and risk rather than raw duration because complexity predicts unpredictability. For a facilities or procurement task, capture lead-time dependencies and acceptance checks in the item’s description so the estimate includes the real work required to prove completion. Keep the Definition of Ready (DoR) and Definition of Done (DoD) explicit for these items so similar work consistently meets the same standard and estimates remain comparable over time.
When operations work contains many handoffs, visualize the workflow and measure small batches to learn realistic cycle times; then use those observations to refine relative sizes. Avoid treating one-off tasks as representative—build empirical grounding by recording actual times and adjusting future estimates accordingly. This empirical loop transforms estimation from guesswork into a learning system that improves forecasts and reduces surprises.
Biases and anti-patterns quietly undermine estimation unless teams call them out: student syndrome where people procrastinate until late, optimism bias where complexity is underestimated, and point inflation that turns sizing into a competitive sport. Watch for conflating size with priority—large items are not inherently more valuable—and for the dangerous habit of treating story points as personal performance metrics rather than planning tools that inform team-level forecasting.
Another common trap is vague acceptance criteria: leaving AC unclear breaks estimates later when testers or reviewers discover hidden requirements. Avoid this by requiring minimal acceptance examples before sizing: what test will prove the item meets its claim, and what data would convince stakeholders the benefit is realized? When acceptance is explicit, estimates become meaningful and less likely to be invalidated by late discoveries.
Finally, resist converting estimates into rigid promises; points inform conversations about risk and sequencing, and should be presented as ranges and confidence levels rather than absolute dates. Teach teams to say “we expect this many points, with medium confidence” and to update forecasts when facts change. That habit preserves flexibility and keeps commitments honest while providing leaders usable planning signals.
For more cyber related content and books, please check out cyber author dot me. Also, there are other prepcasts on Cybersecurity and more at Bare Metal Cyber dot com.
Velocity is the team’s completed size per iteration expressed in the units the team uses—story points or similar—and it’s best spoken as a recent trend rather than a single number. Say three recent iterations finished twenty-four, twenty-six, and twenty-two points; the central tendency is about twenty-four points per iteration. Present velocity as a typical recent delivery rate, not a promise, and use medians or simple averages to reduce the influence of one odd sprint.
To forecast a remaining backlog in iterations, divide the remaining size by a velocity range to produce an iteration range rather than a single deadline. For example, if the backlog totals one hundred twenty points and your velocity range is twenty to twenty-five points per iteration, the range is roughly six to five iterations. Speak the steps slowly: total remaining size divided by lower velocity, then by higher velocity, and present the resulting window with confidence notes.
Use simple heuristics when applying that math: base velocity on the trailing three to five iterations, exclude obvious outliers, and present forecasts with a confidence statement—high, medium, or low. Re-forecast whenever the team composition, tooling, or Definition of Done changes, because those factors materially shift throughput. Document the window and the assumptions beside the forecast so stakeholders can see why the range looks the way it does.
Capacity planning must explicitly account for holidays, training, and expected production support interrupts so forecasts remain realistic. If engineers will dedicate twenty percent of their time to support this month, reduce expected velocity accordingly before dividing backlog size. State these capacity assumptions next to the forecast and update them when events change; doing so keeps surprises rare and decisions about scope or cadence grounded in shared reality rather than optimistic hope.
Work in Progress, or WIP, limits and clear Definitions of Ready and Done stabilize throughput by reducing context switching and rework. Define the Definition of Ready (DoR) so only actionable items enter development, and the Definition of Done (DoD) so completed items truly meet quality and compliance. Explicit DoR and DoD reduce volatility in velocity by preventing partially understood work from inflating estimates and by making completion objective and repeatable across iterations.
Swarming and pairing are practical tactics to improve flow on large or risky stories: concentrate multiple team members briefly to finish a high-value slice rather than stretch attention across many partial tasks. Document these planned swarms as capacity assumptions in the forecast so leaders understand the temporary focus trade-off. Small experiments—pairing for three days on a critical slice—often shorten cycle time and produce clearer evidence for subsequent planning.
Unknowns and dependencies demand early handling: create time-boxed spike stories to learn quickly and reduce estimate uncertainty before committing to full-size work. A spike is a small, planned task whose goal is to answer specific questions and produce data you can use to size the real story. Size the spike modestly, capture what it must prove, and use its outcome to adjust both the item size and its priority in the backlog.
Mark dependency risk explicitly on backlog items and reorder to unblock early when practical: if a high-value item depends on an external API, prioritize the integration spike or arrange the vendor work first so downstream work can proceed. Keep a small contingency buffer for integration and defect handling because these often consume capacity unexpectedly. Escalate chronic external blockers through governance with a concise impact statement so decisions can be made about scope or resourcing.
When external blockers persist, escalate with data: show the backlog impact in point terms, show recent velocity, and state the mitigation options with estimated iteration impact. Use governance only after local mitigation attempts and documented alternatives; escalation should be a path to remove impediments, not a blame tool. This keeps forecasts credible and opens practical remedy choices rather than surprise mandates.
Scenario: the team’s velocity dropped after unexpected support work reduced availability. Option A: hold the original forecast steady and hope throughput recovers. Option B: increase overtime to hit the prior forecast. Option C: explicitly model support capacity, separate support work from sprint commitment, and re-forecast using the adjusted velocity range. Option D: abandon points and switch to hourly estimates. I’ll give you a moment to consider that.
The best next action is Option C—model support capacity and adjust the forecast range—because it treats the change as a capacity shift, not a measurement failure. Quantify how much support consumed in points or percent and reduce the expected velocity accordingly; present a new iteration range with confidence levels and the assumption that support will normalize. Reinforce DoR and DoD and adjust WIP limits if necessary to reduce churn and protect the team’s ability to finish slices.
Increasing overtime (Option B) or holding the forecast steady (Option A) are tempting but risky: overtime erodes sustainability and quality, and hoping for recovery hides real constraints. Switching to hourly estimates (Option D) often creates false precision and undermines the benefits of relative sizing and team planning. Model capacity explicitly, communicate assumptions, and use the revised forecast to drive clear trade-off discussions with stakeholders.
Common pitfalls include treating points as promises, ignoring capacity changes like planned leaves or recurring support, and forecasting single dates instead of ranges. Another trap is re-estimating mid-iteration as a way to “hit” a forecast rather than adjusting scope—this practice erodes trust. Avoid these by using points as planning signals, updating forecasts when capacity shifts, and presenting ranges that honestly reflect uncertainty.
A quick playbook: size items relatively and split large ones aggressively; stabilize your Definition of Ready and Definition of Done so estimates are comparable; track velocity across trailing sprints and exclude outliers; produce forecast ranges and document capacity assumptions; and re-forecast whenever team composition or policy shifts. Communicate the math and confidence plainly so leaders can choose trade-offs without mistaking estimates for guarantees.
Close by prioritizing communication over defensiveness: present forecasts as ranges with stated assumptions, tell stakeholders what would change the numbers, and recommend clear trade-offs rather than hiding behind point estimates. Emphasize the team’s commitment to steady improvement, predictable delivery through stabilized policies, and to updating plans when facts change—this approach preserves trust and makes estimation a practical aid to decision-making.