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.

3600 Final Exam- Requires Respondus LockDown Browser

View Explanation

Log in for full answers

Similar Questions

In a consumer society, many adults channel creativity into buying things

Economic stress and unpredictable times have resulted in a booming industry for self-help products

People born without creativity never can develop it

A product has a selling price of $20, a contribution margin ratio of 40% and fixed cost of $120,000. To make a profit of $30,000. The number of units that must be sold is: Type the number without $ and a comma. Eg: 20000

Which of the following statement regarding cost is correct:

Under the assumptions used in cost-volume-profit analysis, as the activity increases:

The CVP and break-even analysis are supported by a range of important assumptions. Which of the following is not an assumption of the CVP:

The break-even point is that at which:

More Practical Tools for International Students

Homework AI Solver

Stylized Writing Assistant

Plagiarism Checker Assistant

Citation Assistant

In-Class Translation Assistant

Class Notes Assistant

Quiz Search Assistant

Past Exam Questions by School

Smart Practice Assistant

Adaptive Practice

Making Your Study Simpler