I like this a lot - have always thought that sizing tasks is a waste of time. If you’re not sure about how many points or whatever are in your task, then it’s not defined well enough, and you should just make subtasks.
We’ve been using Linear for project management, which features a bunch of these ideas. We don’t size tasks, and instead measure the total number of tickets finished in a cycle (3 weeks for us, with 1 week “cooldown” in between each cycle). Linear’s burnup charts also show us the lower & upper bounds for delivery dates on projects, though I’m not totally sure if they correspond exactly to the “50%/90% confidence” metrics used in this article. Linear’s tasks also nest easily, so any subtasks you create are “real tickets”, unlike eg. Shortcut (fka Clubhouse), which only lets you create checklists on tickets (or at least did, the last time we used it.)
This is pretty cool, but I wonder how much this applies outside of the contracting space.
Not so much because my work is completely original and innovative, or even using new technology, but because the mix of work and priorities is always subject to change.
I don’t work in contracting, but if I never again had to have discussions like “how many story points is this?” and “by the way how many days is each story point?” I’d be massively ok with that.