Is there any point in tracking "Individual Output" via absolute sub-task estimates? Need a sanity check.
Hi everyone,
I’m a developer at a startup where the leadership is putting heavy pressure on engineering to increase "individual output."
To address this, a new process has been introduced:
Mandatory Absolute Estimation for Sub-tasks: Every single sub-task must have an absolute time estimate.（days）
Planning Poker for Time: We use Planning Poker to decide these daily estimates. Since our teams are cross-functional, the accuracy is often poor, as we frequently estimate tasks outside our core areas of expertise.
Individual Monitoring via Custom Tool: A custom dashboard has been built to track the "points/hours" completed by each individual developer.
I’m concerned that this approach may not lead to the intended outcomes.In particular, I’m unsure whether estimating sub-tasks in absolute time—and using that data to monitor individual performance—aligns well with Agile/Scrum principles.
I have a few questions for the community:
• Has anyone actually seen a system of "sub-task level absolute estimation" work to increase actual value or speed?
• How do you handle the inherent inaccuracy of using Planning Poker for absolute time (days) rather than relative complexity (points)?
• In your experience, what are the long-term consequences of this kind of individual metrics-tracking on team collaboration and code quality?
I feel like we are measuring "the weight of the plane to see how well it flies," but I want to make sure I’m not just being cynical.
Is there any logical or architectural justification for this approach?