Alternatives to using estimated development time for performance metric

Posted by Canadian_Invest0r@reddit | ExperiencedDevs | View on Reddit | 19 comments

Management is implementing a new system for estimating development time in tickets.

Basically, every ticket has an estimated number of hours. The developer has X number of hours to adjust the estimate. After that, the estimate is set in stone. This was specifically asked for by the CEO.

The issues with the new system is that, because we are working with a large legacy codebase, ticket times can sometimes be unpredictable. Often times, unforeseen issues will arise after the timeline to adjust estimation.

We also have issues where the estimates are asked too early in the process, often before a developer has even had time to start looking into the implementation. Furthermore, developers are often pressured to lower initial development estimates by the team lead or other management, even though those stakeholders usually have limited knowledge about the depth or complexity of the changes. This often leads to projects that go over the estimate or cases where developers will intentionally overestimate the time, both which are frowned upon by management.

But worst is that I've heard that management is considering using the accuracy of development estimates as a metric for annual performance evaluations. Ironically, I think this may reward developers who work on small projects over developers are work on large large scale projects.

I've pushed back a little bit on this process, but have gotten flack from management for doing so. What are some good alternatives or improvements to the existing process that management will have an easier time swallowing than "this is stupid"?