Combining Estimates with Planning Poker--An Empirical Study
Combination of expert opinion is frequently used to produce estimates in software projects. However, if, when and how to combine expert estimates, is poorly understood. In order to study the effects of a combination technique called planning poker, the technique was introduced in a software project...
Gespeichert in:
| Hauptverfasser: | , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Tagungsbericht |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext bestellen |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 358 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | |
| container_start_page | 349 |
| container_title | |
| container_volume | |
| creator | Molokken-Ostvold, K. Haugen, N.C. |
| description | Combination of expert opinion is frequently used to produce estimates in software projects. However, if, when and how to combine expert estimates, is poorly understood. In order to study the effects of a combination technique called planning poker, the technique was introduced in a software project for half of the tasks. The tasks estimated with planning poker provided: 1) group consensus estimates that were less optimistic than the mechanical combination of individual estimates for the same tasks, and 2) group consensus estimates that were more accurate than the mechanical combination of individual estimates for the same tasks. The set of control tasks in the same project, estimated by individual experts, achieved similar estimation accuracy as the planning poker tasks. However, for both planning poker and the control group, measures of the median estimation bias indicated that both groups had unbiased estimates, as the typical estimated task was perfectly on target. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1109/ASWEC.2007.15 |
| format | Conference Proceeding |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>ieee_6IE</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_ieee_primary_4159687</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><ieee_id>4159687</ieee_id><sourcerecordid>4159687</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-i201t-10d1ad7703911ccb5b0ce6a28342c3181018c86058c9a9384538db52893490303</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNotjk1Lw0AUABc_wLZ69OQlf2Dje_uy2bd4CiFVoWChisey2ay6mqQliUj_vaKeBuYwjBCXCCki2Oti81yVqQIwKeojMVNkjNQZ8LGYg8mtVsawOREz1AQSGOhMzMfxHUBBBvlM3JS7ro597F-Tapxi56YwJl9xekvWret__Xr3EQYpiz6pun0condtspk-m8O5OH1x7Rgu_rkQT8vqsbyTq4fb-7JYyagAJ4nQoGuMAbKI3te6Bh9yp5gy5QkZAdlzDpq9dZY408RNrRVbyiwQ0EJc_XVjCGG7H34uh8M2Q21zNvQNGHBGAA</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Publisher</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>conference_proceeding</recordtype></control><display><type>conference_proceeding</type><title>Combining Estimates with Planning Poker--An Empirical Study</title><source>IEEE Electronic Library (IEL) Conference Proceedings</source><creator>Molokken-Ostvold, K. ; Haugen, N.C.</creator><creatorcontrib>Molokken-Ostvold, K. ; Haugen, N.C.</creatorcontrib><description>Combination of expert opinion is frequently used to produce estimates in software projects. However, if, when and how to combine expert estimates, is poorly understood. In order to study the effects of a combination technique called planning poker, the technique was introduced in a software project for half of the tasks. The tasks estimated with planning poker provided: 1) group consensus estimates that were less optimistic than the mechanical combination of individual estimates for the same tasks, and 2) group consensus estimates that were more accurate than the mechanical combination of individual estimates for the same tasks. The set of control tasks in the same project, estimated by individual experts, achieved similar estimation accuracy as the planning poker tasks. However, for both planning poker and the control group, measures of the median estimation bias indicated that both groups had unbiased estimates, as the typical estimated task was perfectly on target.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1530-0803</identifier><identifier>ISBN: 0769527787</identifier><identifier>ISBN: 9780769527789</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 2377-5408</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1109/ASWEC.2007.15</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>IEEE</publisher><subject>Collaborative software ; Computer industry ; Decision making ; Hazards ; Laboratories ; Process planning ; Psychology ; Software engineering ; Software performance ; Wideband</subject><ispartof>2007 Australian Software Engineering Conference (ASWEC'07), 2007, p.349-358</ispartof><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/4159687$$EHTML$$P50$$Gieee$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>309,310,780,784,789,790,2058,27925,54920</link.rule.ids><linktorsrc>$$Uhttps://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/4159687$$EView_record_in_IEEE$$FView_record_in_$$GIEEE</linktorsrc></links><search><creatorcontrib>Molokken-Ostvold, K.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Haugen, N.C.</creatorcontrib><title>Combining Estimates with Planning Poker--An Empirical Study</title><title>2007 Australian Software Engineering Conference (ASWEC'07)</title><addtitle>ASWEC</addtitle><description>Combination of expert opinion is frequently used to produce estimates in software projects. However, if, when and how to combine expert estimates, is poorly understood. In order to study the effects of a combination technique called planning poker, the technique was introduced in a software project for half of the tasks. The tasks estimated with planning poker provided: 1) group consensus estimates that were less optimistic than the mechanical combination of individual estimates for the same tasks, and 2) group consensus estimates that were more accurate than the mechanical combination of individual estimates for the same tasks. The set of control tasks in the same project, estimated by individual experts, achieved similar estimation accuracy as the planning poker tasks. However, for both planning poker and the control group, measures of the median estimation bias indicated that both groups had unbiased estimates, as the typical estimated task was perfectly on target.</description><subject>Collaborative software</subject><subject>Computer industry</subject><subject>Decision making</subject><subject>Hazards</subject><subject>Laboratories</subject><subject>Process planning</subject><subject>Psychology</subject><subject>Software engineering</subject><subject>Software performance</subject><subject>Wideband</subject><issn>1530-0803</issn><issn>2377-5408</issn><isbn>0769527787</isbn><isbn>9780769527789</isbn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>conference_proceeding</rsrctype><creationdate>2007</creationdate><recordtype>conference_proceeding</recordtype><sourceid>6IE</sourceid><sourceid>RIE</sourceid><recordid>eNotjk1Lw0AUABc_wLZ69OQlf2Dje_uy2bd4CiFVoWChisey2ay6mqQliUj_vaKeBuYwjBCXCCki2Oti81yVqQIwKeojMVNkjNQZ8LGYg8mtVsawOREz1AQSGOhMzMfxHUBBBvlM3JS7ro597F-Tapxi56YwJl9xekvWret__Xr3EQYpiz6pun0condtspk-m8O5OH1x7Rgu_rkQT8vqsbyTq4fb-7JYyagAJ4nQoGuMAbKI3te6Bh9yp5gy5QkZAdlzDpq9dZY408RNrRVbyiwQ0EJc_XVjCGG7H34uh8M2Q21zNvQNGHBGAA</recordid><startdate>200704</startdate><enddate>200704</enddate><creator>Molokken-Ostvold, K.</creator><creator>Haugen, N.C.</creator><general>IEEE</general><scope>6IE</scope><scope>6IL</scope><scope>CBEJK</scope><scope>RIE</scope><scope>RIL</scope></search><sort><creationdate>200704</creationdate><title>Combining Estimates with Planning Poker--An Empirical Study</title><author>Molokken-Ostvold, K. ; Haugen, N.C.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-i201t-10d1ad7703911ccb5b0ce6a28342c3181018c86058c9a9384538db52893490303</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>conference_proceedings</rsrctype><prefilter>conference_proceedings</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2007</creationdate><topic>Collaborative software</topic><topic>Computer industry</topic><topic>Decision making</topic><topic>Hazards</topic><topic>Laboratories</topic><topic>Process planning</topic><topic>Psychology</topic><topic>Software engineering</topic><topic>Software performance</topic><topic>Wideband</topic><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Molokken-Ostvold, K.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Haugen, N.C.</creatorcontrib><collection>IEEE Electronic Library (IEL) Conference Proceedings</collection><collection>IEEE Proceedings Order Plan All Online (POP All Online) 1998-present by volume</collection><collection>IEEE Xplore All Conference Proceedings</collection><collection>IEEE Electronic Library (IEL)</collection><collection>IEEE Proceedings Order Plans (POP All) 1998-Present</collection></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext_linktorsrc</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Molokken-Ostvold, K.</au><au>Haugen, N.C.</au><format>book</format><genre>proceeding</genre><ristype>CONF</ristype><atitle>Combining Estimates with Planning Poker--An Empirical Study</atitle><btitle>2007 Australian Software Engineering Conference (ASWEC'07)</btitle><stitle>ASWEC</stitle><date>2007-04</date><risdate>2007</risdate><spage>349</spage><epage>358</epage><pages>349-358</pages><issn>1530-0803</issn><eissn>2377-5408</eissn><isbn>0769527787</isbn><isbn>9780769527789</isbn><abstract>Combination of expert opinion is frequently used to produce estimates in software projects. However, if, when and how to combine expert estimates, is poorly understood. In order to study the effects of a combination technique called planning poker, the technique was introduced in a software project for half of the tasks. The tasks estimated with planning poker provided: 1) group consensus estimates that were less optimistic than the mechanical combination of individual estimates for the same tasks, and 2) group consensus estimates that were more accurate than the mechanical combination of individual estimates for the same tasks. The set of control tasks in the same project, estimated by individual experts, achieved similar estimation accuracy as the planning poker tasks. However, for both planning poker and the control group, measures of the median estimation bias indicated that both groups had unbiased estimates, as the typical estimated task was perfectly on target.</abstract><pub>IEEE</pub><doi>10.1109/ASWEC.2007.15</doi><tpages>10</tpages></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext_linktorsrc |
| identifier | ISSN: 1530-0803 |
| ispartof | 2007 Australian Software Engineering Conference (ASWEC'07), 2007, p.349-358 |
| issn | 1530-0803 2377-5408 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_ieee_primary_4159687 |
| source | IEEE Electronic Library (IEL) Conference Proceedings |
| subjects | Collaborative software Computer industry Decision making Hazards Laboratories Process planning Psychology Software engineering Software performance Wideband |
| title | Combining Estimates with Planning Poker--An Empirical Study |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-22T14%3A15%3A13IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-ieee_6IE&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=proceeding&rft.atitle=Combining%20Estimates%20with%20Planning%20Poker--An%20Empirical%20Study&rft.btitle=2007%20Australian%20Software%20Engineering%20Conference%20(ASWEC'07)&rft.au=Molokken-Ostvold,%20K.&rft.date=2007-04&rft.spage=349&rft.epage=358&rft.pages=349-358&rft.issn=1530-0803&rft.eissn=2377-5408&rft.isbn=0769527787&rft.isbn_list=9780769527789&rft_id=info:doi/10.1109/ASWEC.2007.15&rft_dat=%3Cieee_6IE%3E4159687%3C/ieee_6IE%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_ieee_id=4159687&rfr_iscdi=true |