Your team estimates that a new feature will take 3 weeks based on similar past projects. However, halfway through, a key dependency is delayed, and integration takes an extra two weeks. Your manager asks why the estimate was so far off.

What was most likely missing from the team’s estimation process?

Question

Your team estimates that a new feature will take 3 weeks based on similar past projects. However, halfway through, a key dependency is delayed, and integration takes an extra two weeks. Your manager asks why the estimate was so far off.

What was most likely missing from the team’s estimation process?

BlackTom AI · Accepted Answer

The scenario describes a project estimate that was later invalidated by an outside factor—a key dependency delaying and pushing integration by two weeks. This points to a gap in anticipating uncertainty and external risks rather than purely internal planning accuracy.
Option 1: 'Planning poker' — Planning poker is a collaborative estimation technique used to assign effort or size to user stories. While it helps with consensus and leveling estimates, it does not inherently ensure that uncertainty or external risks are buffered. So this choice doesn’t directly explain why the estimate was so far off.
Option 2: 'Accurate story points' — Accurate story points refer to precise sizing of tasks relative to effort. Even with accurate sizing, if risks and uncertainties aren’t accounted for, the overall timeline can slip. This option ignores the probabilistic and external risk aspects that caused the delay, making it an incomplete explanation.
Option 3: 'A Gantt chart' — A Gantt chart is a scheduling tool that maps tasks against time. While useful for visualization and sequencing, it does not by itself account for variability, uncertainty, or external dependencies unless you explicitly insert buffers. Hence, it is not the core missing element in this scenario.
Option 4: 'Developer time tracking' — Tracking how long developers actually spend tasks can improve future estimates, but time tracking alone doesn't address the risk of delays from dependencies or external factors. It describes measurement rather than anticipation of risk.
Option 5: 'Buffering for uncertainty and external risk' — This directly addresses the missed element: incorporating contingency buffers for unknowns and external delays (such as dependency holdups). It explains why the initial 3-week estimate proved optimistic once an external factor surfaced, making this the correct, most fitting explanation for the scenario.

Similar Questions

Is the following statement true or false? In the products of methylation-hydrolysis, every -OH group corresponds to the position of a glycosidic bond in the starting polysaccharide.

Which of the follwoing structures represents amylopectin?

Which of the following is true about an aldopentose?I. It is a monosaccharide.II. It contains a CHO groupIII. It is a disaccharide.IV. It is an oligosaccharide.

For stock A, we have 𝛽 𝑖 = 0.70. Suppose the expected market risk premium next year is 9% and the risk-free rate is 3%. What is the expected return of this stock based on the CAPM? (Please answer in % and round to 2 decimal places. If the answer is 8.057%, then in the box, write 8.06)

The following graph shows the Security Market Line in the current economy. If a stock has a β of 1.2, what is the expected return of this stock based on the CAPM? (Please answer in % and round to 2 decimal places. If the answer is 8.057%, then in the box, write 8.06)

More Practical Tools for Students Powered by AI Study Helper

Homework AI Solver

Stylized AI Paper Writer

Plagiarism Checker Assistant

Citation AI Academic Writing Tool

In-Class Translation Assistant

AI Note Generator

AI Quiz Answers

Past Exam Questions from University Test Bank

Smart Practice Assistant

Adaptive Practice

Making Your Study Simpler