Improving Estimation for Immature Teams: A Practical Approach

Estimation is notoriously difficult, especially for immature or newly-formed development teams. Without historical data, well-defined processes, or a shared understanding of scope, many teams struggle to produce reliable effort estimates.

But there are ways to improve this — not through guesswork, but by adding structure and clarity to the process.

Over the years, I’ve developed a method that helps anchor the estimation process, even when team experience is limited. It revolves around a simple principle: decompose the project and capture all critical elements in a single, well-structured document.

Why Estimation Fails in Immature Teams

Some common pitfalls I’ve observed:

• Requirements are vague or scattered across different sources
• No shared mental model of the application
• Underestimation of edge cases and integration complexity
• Lack of clarity around non-functional requirements
• Inconsistent usage of tools, frameworks, or platforms

Instead of diving straight into story points or hour-based guesses, I start with understanding and clarity.

The Estimation Document: Structure & Content

I use a single document to structure the estimation process. It serves as both a scoping tool and a discussion anchor for the team and stakeholders. Here’s what it includes:

1. Overview
2. Data Model
3. Application Screens
4. User Stories
5. Non-functional Requirements
6. Technologies
7. Architectural Overview
8. Development Plan & Estimation

1. Overview

A brief summary of the application’s purpose, audience, and business goals. This sets the context.

2. Data Model

A high-level representation of the key entities and how they relate. This may include:

• Users
• Transactions
• Resources
• Any domain-specific models

Even a rough ER diagram or bulleted list works here.

3. Application Screens

Break down the application into screens or views. For example:

• Login/Register
• Dashboard
• Product List
• Admin Panel

Screens help estimate the UI/UX complexity and identify common workflows.

4. User Stories

Write out user stories for each interaction:

• As a user, I want to reset my password…
• As an admin, I want to review submitted applications…

Stories are mapped to screens, giving us clear estimation units.

5. Non-functional Requirements

Capture expectations beyond features:

• Performance (e.g. “must support 500 concurrent users”)
• Uptime (e.g. “99.9% SLA”)
• Security (e.g. “2FA, GDPR compliance”)
• SEO, accessibility, localisation, etc.

This helps prevent underestimation (or overesimtation) of critical technical work.

6. Technologies

Document chosen or proposed tech:

• Frontend (e.g. React, Vue)
• Backend (e.g. Rails, Laravel)
• Infrastructure (e.g. AWS, Docker, CI/CD tools)
• Third-party services (e.g. Stripe, Mailchimp)

It avoids late-stage surprises or overengineering.

7. Architectural Overview

A high-level view of how the system will be structured. This might include:

• Frontend/backend boundaries
• Microservices or monolith
• Key third-party integrations
• Deployment model (cloud, self-hosted, hybrid)

Very basic blocks with arrows would does work here. This gives context to technical decisions and helps estimate infrastructure and cross-cutting concerns like authentication or messaging.

8. Development Plan & Estimation

This section maps application screens and user stories into development phases or sprints. It includes:

• Estimated effort per screen/story (in hours or days)
• Dependencies between screens or components
• Suggested implementation order
• Parallelisation opportunities across the team

By planning estimation around concrete units like screens and respecting their dependencies, teams can create a realistic roadmap and avoid overcommitment.

Feature: Objects Managment

Total rough estimation: 66h

Having such table gives your team, and stakeholders understanding of what is working consists of, and be realistic on estimation. If you have such document it will reduce meeting times by a half.

Benefits of This Approach

• Improves team alignment before any estimates are made
• Reduces ambiguity and misinterpretation
• Makes hidden complexity visible early
• Encourages realistic conversations with stakeholders
• Creates a reusable template for future projects

Final Thoughts

For immature teams, estimation doesn’t have to feel like guesswork. Structure, documentation, and shared understanding go a long way.

When estimating how long it will take to implement a specific screen and its functionality, I consider several factors: the complexity of the UI, the number of interactive elements, data bindings, validations, backend integrations, and edge cases. I break the screen down into atomic tasks — layout, components, API wiring, error handling, testing — and assess each task individually. For example, a simple static screen might take 2–4 hours, while a dynamic screen with forms, role-based logic, and asynchronous data could span 1–2 days. I also factor in code reuse, available design assets, and potential blockers. The goal is not to guess, but to reason based on structure, dependencies, and team capacity.

Another important advantage of using application screens as estimation units is the ability to clearly see dependencies between them. In real-world projects, not all screens can be developed in parallel — some rely on shared components, backend endpoints, or user flows that must be built first. For example, a “settings” screen may depend on the authentication system being in place, or a “Checkout” screen might require the product and cart functionality to be completed first. By treating each screen as a discrete, estimable unit, and then mapping out their dependencies, teams can better prioritise work, identify blockers early, and avoid unrealistic assumptions about parallel progress. Estimation becomes not just a question of how long, but also in what order things can be done.

This approach won’t make estimates perfect — but it will make them consistent, defensible, and useful. And more importantly, it implies the kind of discipline and thinking that builds mature teams over time.

Bonus (visual for document structure)