They're not perfect (nothing is), but they're actually pretty good. Every task has to be completable within a sprint. If it's not, you break it down until you have a part that you expect is. Everyone has to unanimously agree on how many points a particular story (task) is worth. The process of coming to unanimous agreement is the difficult part, and where the real value lies. Someone says "3 points", and someone points out they haven't thought about how it will require X, Y, and Z. Someone else says "40 points" and they're asked to explain and it turns out they misunderstood the feature entirely. After somewhere from 2 to 20 minutes, everyone has tried to think about all the gotchas and all the ways it might be done more easily, and you come up with an estimate. History tells you how many points you usually deliver per sprint, and after a few months the team usually gets pretty accurate to within +/- 10% or so, since underestimation on one story gets balanced by overestimation on another.
It's not magic. It prevents you from estimating things longer than a sprint, because it assumes that's impossible. But it does ensure that you're constantly delivering value at a steady pace, and that you revisit the cost/benefit tradeoff of each new piece of work at every sprint, so you're not blindsided by everything being 10x or 20x slower than expected after 3 or 6 months.
For instance someone says a ticket is two days' work. For half the team that could be four days because people are new to the team or haven't touched that codebase, etc. But because the person who knows the ticket and context well enough says 2, people tend to go with what they say.
We end up having less of those discussions you describe to come to an agreement that works more on an average length of time the ticket should take to complete.
And then the org makes up new rules that SWEs should be turning around PRs in less than 24 hours and if reviews/iterating on those reviews takes longer than two days then our metrics look bad and there could be consequences.
But that's another story.
And yes, when there's a task that one person happens to know most, people will often defer to them. But that in itself is educational, as the experienced dev explains why the given task is easy/hard. And every task is different, so the person you're deferring to will be different, and you still often get the two or three people who know the task best disagreeing until they hash it out, etc. And very often it's another person who can point out "well it would be that easy except three sprints ago I did x and so you'll now need to do y...". And of course plenty of tasks really are brand-new so everyone's figuring it out together.
If you're really not having actual discussions around complexity in planning poker, then the facilitator/lead/manager might be doing it wrong. You do have to create an environment where people are expected to speak up and disagree, to demonstrate that this is welcomed and expected and rewarded, and not just some kind of checkbox exercise where the most senior dev gives their estimation and everyone agrees. This is also a reason why it's literally done with cards where everyone is forced to put their number on the table at the same time, so that you don't wind up with some senior person always going first and then everyone else just nodding and agreeing.
I hear this often, but I've never met someone for whom points didn't eventually turn into a measurement of time - even using the exact process you're describing.
I think any process that's this hard to implement should be considered bad by default, barring some extraordinary proof of efficacy.
The goal isn't to avoid time estimation completely, that would be crazy. People estimate how many points get delivered per sprint and sprints have fixed lengths of time. You can do the math, you're supposed to.
The point is that points avoid a false sense of precision: >>46748310
The process is quite easy to implement. And it does wind up with extraordinary efficacy gains on a lot of teams, that's the whole reason why it's so popular. But you do have to actually learn about it. Here:
https://www.atlassian.com/agile/project-management/estimatio...
Having implemented it myself, I agree it is easy to implement. My argument is that it is overly difficult to maintain. My experience is that incentives to corrupt the point system are too high for organizations to resist.
Funnily enough - I work closely with a former director of engineering at Atlassian (the company whose guide you cite) and he is of the opinion that pointing had become "utterly dishonest and a complete waste of time". I respect that opinion.
If you have citations on pointing being effective I'd be very interested. I consider myself reasonably up to date on SWE productivity literature and am not aware of any evidence to that point - I have yet to see it.
I'm not aware of any citations, just like I'm not aware of any citations for most common development practices. It seems to be justified more in a practical sense -- as a team or business, you try it out, and see if it improves productivity and planning. If so, you keep it. I've worked at several places that adopted it, to huge success, solving a number of problems. I've never once seen a place choose to stop it, or find something that worked better. If you have a citation that there is something that works better than points estimation, then please share!
It's just wisdom of the crowds, or two heads are better than one. Involving more people in making estimates, avoiding false precision, and surfacing disagreement -- how is that not going to result in higher-quality estimates?
Stepping back - my experience is that points are solving a problem good organizations don't have.
The practice I see work well is that a senior person comes up with a high level plan fror a project with confidence intervals on timeline and quality and has it sanity checked by peers. Stakeholders understand the timeline and scope to be an evolving conversation that we iterate on week-by-week. Our rough estimates are enough to see when the project is truly off-track and we can have a discussion about timelines and resourcing.
I just don't see what points do for me other than attempt to "measure velocity". In principle there's a metric that's useful for upper management, but the moment they treat it as a target engineers juice their numbers.
On the one hand, they simply can't. They're a measurement of effort, and a junior dev will take more time to finish a story than a senior dev will. On the other hand, at the sprint velocity level, yes of course they're supposed to be equivalent to time, in the sense that they're what the team expects to be able to accomplish in the length of a sprint. That's not dishonest, that's the purpose.
> The practice I see work well is that a senior person comes up with a high level plan fror a project with confidence intervals on timeline and quality and has it sanity checked by peers... I just don't see what points do for me other than attempt to "measure velocity".
Right, so what happens with what you describe is that you're skipping the "wisdom of the crowds" part, estimation is done too quickly and not in enough depth, and you wind up significantly underestimating, and management keeps pushing the senior person to reduce they're estimates because there's no process behind them, and planning suffers because you're trying to order the backlog based on wishful thinking rather than good information.
What points estimation does is provide a process that aims to increase accuracy which can be used for better planning, in order to deliver the highest-priority features faster, and not waste time on longer features that go off track where nobody notices for weeks. Management can say, "can't they do it faster?", and you can explain, "we have a process for estimation and this is it." It's not any single employee's opinion, it's a process. This is huge.
> but the moment they treat it as a target engineers juice their numbers.
How? Management doesn't care about points delivered, they care about features delivered. There's nothing to "juice". Points are internal to a team, and used with stakeholders to measure the expected relative size of tasks, so tasks can be reprioritized. I've never seen sprint velocity turn into some kind of management target, it doesn't even make sense. I mean, I'm sure there's some dumb management out there that's tried it. But what you're describing isn't my experience even remotely.