�ݺ�ߣ

Editor's Notes

• #2: For estimation, we use something called ‘planning poker’. Outline: - Why relative estimation? (I will not go into their function in scrum) - Planning Poker workings - Try it out! This presentation is based on http://blog.tastycupcakes.com/2009/06/doggy-planning/
• #3: Goal of this slide: show the benefits of relative estimation The chicago skyline Points to make: - relative estimation is pretty easy - the larger the estimate, the lower the accuracy (there’s no need to argue over 31 or 32) image source: http://www.flickr.com/photos/atelier_tee/475960290/
• #4: Goal of this slide: show the benefits of relative estimation The chicago skyline Points to make: - relative estimation is pretty easy - the larger the estimate, the lower the accuracy (there’s no need to argue over 31 or 32) image source: http://www.flickr.com/photos/atelier_tee/475960290/
• #5: Goal of this slide: show the benefits of relative estimation The chicago skyline Points to make: - relative estimation is pretty easy - the larger the estimate, the lower the accuracy (there’s no need to argue over 31 or 32) image source: http://www.flickr.com/photos/atelier_tee/475960290/
• #6: Goal of this slide: show the benefits of relative estimation The chicago skyline Points to make: - relative estimation is pretty easy - the larger the estimate, the lower the accuracy (there’s no need to argue over 31 or 32) image source: http://www.flickr.com/photos/atelier_tee/475960290/
• #7: Goal of this slide: show the benefits of relative estimation The chicago skyline Points to make: - relative estimation is pretty easy - the larger the estimate, the lower the accuracy (there’s no need to argue over 31 or 32) image source: http://www.flickr.com/photos/atelier_tee/475960290/
• #8: Goal of this slide: show the benefits of relative estimation The chicago skyline Points to make: - relative estimation is pretty easy - the larger the estimate, the lower the accuracy (there’s no need to argue over 31 or 32) image source: http://www.flickr.com/photos/atelier_tee/475960290/
• #9: One deck, three rounds, one estimate
• #10: - Introduce the problem - Estimate: We re-estimate if - estimates are off more than 1 step, or - ?’s are used Furthermore, we redefine if - estimates are too high (80 is high), so we split up the task - discussion shows we misunderstand this issue - Ideally, we end up with a unanimous verdict; if after three rounds we are still 1 step off, we average the cast esimates
• #11: The deck uses a modified fibonacci sequence. Image: http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/archives/000981.html
• #12: The headline: imagine you’re god, and start creating dogs. TODO add dogs playing poker image
• #14: Smallest dog, this will become the reference image: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chihuahua_(dog)
• #15: “Duitse dog” / “Deense dog”
• #16: The biggest dog I know, estimate should be very large image: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_dane
• #18: Estimate should be somewhere in between image: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_retriever
• #20: Well, what kind of a poodle do we mean? Their sizes range from ‘toy’ to ‘standard’. images: http://www.flickr.com/photos/tranztec/3384888065/ , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_poodle
• #21: “Newfoundlander”
• #22: Not a very well known dog, we should ask for specs! images: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newfoundland_(dog)
• #23: “Oostenrijkse Gildeboer”
• #24: That’s not a dog at all, we should end up with no estimate! images: http://www.worldmapsonline.com/images/OutlineMaps/Austria.jpg