I see two points of view: developer's estimations and project manager's controling.
From developer's point of view
I don't think there is a rule on setting the upper limit for a task estimation. At least I couldn't set one to apply to all the projects I worked in.
Normally, the rule is to break the task to be estimated in smaller pieces if the task is too complex to be estimated as it is, or in the case the estimation will be hard to be justified to the project manager/customer/other stakeholder without providing other details (as a project manager I always ask details about an estimation).
Considering these, we had tasks of 4 hours duration (but never less than 4 hours), but also tasks of 1 week duration (sometimes 2 weeks, but the estimation was based on historical data).
From project manager's point of view
I prefer to manage the tasks at weeks level of duration. Going to detailed subtasks tasks is a matter of micromanagement (usually the team/tech leader has control there) and transforms progress tracking in a big mess, with potential false data.
When we do our planning, we break things up into 4 hour tasks (at the longest). And, we only plan for 4 work days per week. (We figure that the rest of the time is taken up with meetings, etc.)
In planning projects I do not like having any task shorter than 2 days. Capping it at any less than a day seems pretty restrictive, as that won't account for any task with a significant discovery component.
And we book 6 hour days, assuming the other 2 hours will get taken up with meetings and other miscellaneous tasks.
Where I work we have a limit of 24 hours being the most that an individual card can get. If it is more than that, it should be broken down into small enough chunks that one can see the movement after the daily stand-up, as otherwise one is kind of stuck in terms of hours and may need additional resources to unblock. My personal preference is to try to go no higher than 16 hours where some cards may balloon in terms of hours needed from the estimate as new issues were discovered that caused a card to become a kind of black hole in terms of swallowing lots of time in the sprint.
正如您已经指出的，花费时间超过 X 的任务可能应该分解为更小的任务，越小越好，因为大多数开发人员在估计方面确实很糟糕，尽管我已经说过，我已经提供了长达 3 天的工作的准确估计（24小时），但你的团队里程可能会有所不同，所以一定要选择最小的
as you already point out, tasks that take longer than X should probably be broken out into smaller tasks, the smaller the better since most developers are really bad at estimates, having said that I have provided accurate estimates up to 3 days of work (24 hours), but your team mileage may vary, so definitely go for the smallest you can
发布评论
评论（6）
我看到两个观点：开发人员的估计和项目经理的控制。
从开发人员的角度
我认为没有规则可以设置任务估计的上限。 至少我无法设置一个适用于我参与的所有项目。
通常，如果任务太复杂而无法按原样估计，或者在这种情况下，规则是把要估计的任务分解为更小的部分如果不提供其他详细信息，则很难向项目经理/客户/其他利益相关者证明估算的合理性（作为项目经理，我总是询问有关估算的详细信息）。
考虑到这些，我们有持续时间为 4 小时的任务（但绝不会少于 4 小时），也有持续时间为 1 周的任务（有时为 2 周，但估计是基于历史数据）。
从项目经理的角度
我更喜欢管理持续时间为数周的任务。 详细的子任务任务是一个微观管理的问题（通常由团队/技术领导者控制），并在混乱中改变进度跟踪，并可能存在错误数据。
I see two points of view: developer's estimations and project manager's controling.
From developer's point of view
I don't think there is a rule on setting the upper limit for a task estimation. At least I couldn't set one to apply to all the projects I worked in.
Normally, the rule is to break the task to be estimated in smaller pieces if the task is too complex to be estimated as it is, or in the case the estimation will be hard to be justified to the project manager/customer/other stakeholder without providing other details (as a project manager I always ask details about an estimation).
Considering these, we had tasks of 4 hours duration (but never less than 4 hours), but also tasks of 1 week duration (sometimes 2 weeks, but the estimation was based on historical data).
From project manager's point of view
I prefer to manage the tasks at weeks level of duration. Going to detailed subtasks tasks is a matter of micromanagement (usually the team/tech leader has control there) and transforms progress tracking in a big mess, with potential false data.
当我们制定计划时，我们会将事情分解为 4 小时的任务（最长）。 而且，我们每周只计划 4 个工作日。 （我们认为剩下的时间都花在了会议等上。）
When we do our planning, we break things up into 4 hour tasks (at the longest). And, we only plan for 4 work days per week. (We figure that the rest of the time is taken up with meetings, etc.)
在规划项目时，我不喜欢任何短于 2 天的任务。 将其限制在少于一天似乎是相当严格的，因为这不能解释任何具有重要发现组件的任务。
我们每天预订 6 小时，假设另外 2 小时用于会议和其他杂务任务。
In planning projects I do not like having any task shorter than 2 days. Capping it at any less than a day seems pretty restrictive, as that won't account for any task with a significant discovery component.
And we book 6 hour days, assuming the other 2 hours will get taken up with meetings and other miscellaneous tasks.
如果您跟踪估计/实际历史记录，您可能可以按准确度绘制小时数，并准确找出适合您的团队的数字。
If you track your estimate/actual history, you can probably plot hours by accuracy and figure out exactly what number is appropriate for your team.
在我工作的地方，我们有 24 小时的限制，这是个人卡可以获得的最长期限。 如果不止于此，则应将其分解为足够小的块，以便人们可以在每日站立会议后看到其动向，否则人们会在时间上陷入困境，并且可能需要额外的资源来解锁。 我个人的偏好是尝试不超过 16 小时，在这种情况下，一些卡可能会根据估计所需的时间而膨胀，因为发现新问题导致卡成为一种黑洞，消耗大量时间。冲刺。
Where I work we have a limit of 24 hours being the most that an individual card can get. If it is more than that, it should be broken down into small enough chunks that one can see the movement after the daily stand-up, as otherwise one is kind of stuck in terms of hours and may need additional resources to unblock. My personal preference is to try to go no higher than 16 hours where some cards may balloon in terms of hours needed from the estimate as new issues were discovered that caused a card to become a kind of black hole in terms of swallowing lots of time in the sprint.
正如您已经指出的，花费时间超过 X 的任务可能应该分解为更小的任务，越小越好，因为大多数开发人员在估计方面确实很糟糕，尽管我已经说过，我已经提供了长达 3 天的工作的准确估计（24小时），但你的团队里程可能会有所不同，所以一定要选择最小的
as you already point out, tasks that take longer than X should probably be broken out into smaller tasks, the smaller the better since most developers are really bad at estimates, having said that I have provided accurate estimates up to 3 days of work (24 hours), but your team mileage may vary, so definitely go for the smallest you can