Story Points vs Hours - The Great Debate
CFO wants us to switch from story points to hours so they can "understand real capacity". Anyone successfully defended story points to non-technical stakeholders? Or should we just switch to hours?
Story points win because they're relative, not absolute. A 5-point story is 5-points whether a junior or senior dev does it. Hours vary wildly by person. Plus points account for complexity AND uncertainty - a simple but risky story gets higher points.
Hours force false precision. We showed CFO: story point velocity stayed stable ±10%, hour estimates varied ±40%. That won the argument.
Controversial take: hours work fine if you're honest. Estimate in ideal hours (no meetings, interruptions). Track actual vs estimate. Your "hour factor" emerges (usually 0.3-0.4). One ideal hour = 2.5-3 calendar hours. CFOs love this because they can budget. Just don't pretend hours are precise.
Do both. Estimate in points for the team, convert to hours for stakeholders using your historical velocity. 1 point = X hours based on data. Everyone gets what they need. Yes it's translation overhead but keeps peace with finance.
Points protect teams from hour-based micromanagement. The minute you say "8 hours" someone asks why it's not 6. Points create healthy abstraction. Fight for points - it's about team autonomy, not just estimation accuracy.
We switched TO hours and regret it. Every estimate became a negotiation. "Why 16 hours?" "Can't you do it in 12?" Points avoided that because non-technical people don't argue about what a "5" means. Switching back next quarter.