| Course | BU 433 Agile Project Management |
|---|---|
| Unit | Unit 4 |
| Paper type | Estimation exercise |
| Length | About 860 words, 6 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Herzing University |
| Program | BS in Project Management |
| Updated | September 2026 |
Free sample paper for BU 433 Unit 4
Thirty-Nine Points, Three to Four Sprints, and a Vendor Date That Matters More: An Estimation Exercise for the Online Move-In Backlog of a Composite Storage Chain
Student Name
Business, Herzing University
BU 433: Agile Project Management
Instructor Name
February 25, 2026
Thirty-Nine Points, Three to Four Sprints, and a Vendor Date That Matters More: An Estimation Exercise for the Online Move-In Backlog of a Composite Storage Chain
What Was Estimated and How
The five-person team at Prairie Vault Storage, the composite chain of 11 storage facilities followed in this course, sized the nine refined items at the top of its online move-in backlog on February 23, 2026. Sizes are story points, a relative measure of effort, complexity and uncertainty, not hours. Cohn (2005) recommends relative sizing because people judge whether one task is bigger than another more reliably than they judge how long either will take, and because points avoid the false precision of hour estimates made before the work is understood.
The team used planning poker. The product owner read each item and its acceptance criteria and answered questions. Each of the four team members who build or test chose a card privately from the sequence 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 20, and all cards were shown at once. When they differed, the highest and lowest voters explained their reasoning, and the team voted again. A study at a software company found that estimates reached this way were less optimistic than a simple average of the same people's individual estimates and, for most tasks, closer to the effort eventually spent (Moløkken-Østvold et al., 2008). The product owner did not vote.
The Reference Item
Every item was sized against one reference: Item A, showing unit availability and price on each facility page, set at 3 points. The team chose it because both developers had built similar pages on the 2025 website, it touches the management system's data but writes nothing back, and everyone could picture the work. Each later item was sized by asking whether it was smaller than, about the same as or larger than Item A, and by how much.
The Sizes and Where They Diverged
Five of the nine items reached agreement in the first or second round. Four needed discussion worth recording, because the discussion changed what the team knew.
| Item | First round votes | Final size | What the conversation surfaced |
|---|---|---|---|
| A. Availability and price (reference) | 3, 3, 3, 3 | 3 | Agreed |
| B. Gate vendor sandbox test | 2, 2, 1, 3 | 2 | Agreed in round two |
| C. Card payment and hold | 5, 5, 3, 5 | 5 | The 30-minute hold release needs a scheduled job |
| D. Lease signing | 3, 5, 13, 8 | 8 | Stored version, audit record and emailed PDF |
| F. Gate code by text | 3, 5, 5, 8 | 5 | Fallback alert if the vendor does not confirm |
| G. Manager's dashboard | 3, 2, 3, 3 | 3 | Agreed |
| I. Abandoned rental email | 2, 2, 2, 1 | 2 | Agreed |
| E. Identity check | 5, 8, 20, 8 | 8, with a condition | Vendor not chosen; size holds only for one of two approaches |
| H. Save progress | 3, 3, 5, 3 | 3 | Agreed in round two |
| Total | 39 |
Lease signing produced the widest first spread, from 3 to 13. The developer who voted 3 pictured displaying a document and capturing a signature with an existing library. The tester, who voted 13, pointed out that the acceptance criteria require the stored record to include the lease version, time and device, a copy emailed within five minutes and a disabled button until every notice section has been opened. Those requirements are the legal protection the company needs, and once they were read aloud the developer revised the estimate. The team settled on 8.
The identity check split three ways. The vote of 20 came from the developer who assumed the team would read license photos itself; the votes of 8 assumed an outside identity service. The team agreed to record 8 on the condition that an outside service is chosen, and to re-estimate if the product owner decides otherwise. That condition is noted on the backlog item so the size is not later treated as unconditional. Expert estimates tend to improve when estimators must justify their numbers and when uncertainty is made explicit rather than averaged away (Jørgensen, 2004), which is exactly what these two discussions did. Neither conversation would have happened if the team had simply averaged the first cards.
From Sizes to a Forecast
The team has run two sprints since adopting two-week iterations in January, completing 11 points in the first and 15 in the second. Two sprints are a thin history, so the forecast uses the range rather than an average and is stated as a range.
The smallest releasable flow, items B, A, C, D and F, totals 23 points. At 15 points a sprint it needs two sprints; at 11 it needs three. Starting from the sprint that begins February 23, the flow could be complete between March 20 and April 3. All nine items, 39 points, need three sprints at the faster pace and four at the slower one, finishing between April 3 and April 17.
The forecast shows something the backlog alone did not. The pilot release cannot happen until counsel approves the lease, due in March, and the gate vendor opens its interface, due in mid-April. The team will very likely finish the minimum flow before the vendor date. The release is governed by the vendor, not by the team's pace, so the spare sprint is better spent building the identity check than waiting with the manual review workaround.
What Relative Sizing Cannot Answer
Points cannot say when an outside party will deliver; the vendor and counsel dates come from contracts and calendars. They do not measure value, which is why the product owner orders the backlog and the team only sizes it. They cannot be compared with another team's points, since each team's scale rests on its own reference item. And a forecast from two sprints will move: if the next sprint completes 9 points or 18, the range should be recalculated. The team has agreed to update the forecast at each sprint review. The company, its team and all votes and figures are composites for this course.
References
Cohn, M. (2005). Agile estimating and planning. Prentice Hall.
Jørgensen, M. (2004). A review of studies on expert estimation of software development effort. Journal of Systems and Software, 70(1-2), 37-60. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0164-1212(02)00156-5
Moløkken-Østvold, K., Haugen, N. C., & Benestad, H. C. (2008). Using planning poker for combining expert estimates in software projects. Journal of Systems and Software, 81(12), 2106-2117. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jss.2008.03.058
Reading the BU 433 Unit 4 instructions
In BU 433 Unit 4, students estimate a set of backlog items using a relative technique such as story points with planning poker or t-shirt sizes. Typical requirements include choosing a reference item, recording estimates and the discussion behind any disagreement, totaling the sizes, and using a velocity or throughput figure to forecast how many iterations the work will take. Many prompts ask for the forecast as a range and for a discussion of the limits of relative estimation. Students working alone may simulate a team, provided the simulation is labeled and the disagreements are realistic. Expect about three or four pages with an estimate table in APA 7 formatting, and a conclusion that says what the forecast cannot tell a manager.
How this BU 433 Unit 4 example is built
The paper first explains the technique, who voted and why the product owner did not, citing research on planning poker. It then names the reference item and why the team chose it. A table lists all nine items with first-round votes, final sizes and what each conversation revealed. Two paragraphs explain the widest disagreements, the lease and the identity check, and how the identity size was made conditional. A forecast section uses the team's two completed sprints as a low and high pace, calculates when the minimum flow and the full set could finish, and compares those dates with the counsel and vendor milestones. The final section lists four questions that points cannot answer, including outside dates and value.
BU 433 Unit 4 rubric: what full points look like
Grading for the estimation unit at Herzing generally covers the estimation method, the use of a reference, the treatment of disagreement, the forecast and reflection on limits, alongside writing and sources. Method earns credit when the technique is described accurately and applied consistently. The reference criterion rewards a clearly chosen baseline item. Disagreement scores highest when first estimates are recorded and the discussion that changed them is explained, since that is where estimation adds value. The forecast criterion expects a range based on actual or clearly labeled throughput, not a single date. Reflection earns full marks when the student explains what relative sizing cannot answer, such as external dependencies or business value.
Common BU 433 Unit 4 mistakes, and how to avoid them
Students often lose points on the estimation unit by converting story points directly into hours, which defeats the purpose of relative sizing. Another common problem is recording only final estimates, hiding the disagreements that reveal hidden work. Some papers forecast a single completion date from one sprint's velocity. Others invent a velocity with no explanation. Many never compare the forecast with external dates, missing that the team's pace may not decide the release at all. Estimates made by one person and presented as a team consensus without saying so raise doubts. Finally, papers that treat points as comparable across teams, or as a measure of productivity, misunderstand what the numbers mean and tend to draw instructor comments.
Get a BU 433 Unit 4 example written to your instructions
Attach the Unit 4 instructions and your BU 433 rubric, along with the backlog the sizing works from and any technique your section requires. We write a custom example that anchors on a reference item, notes the reasoning behind every size, keeps divergence visible, states the throughput assumption and forecasts a span. First custom sample free, returned in 24 to 48 hours.
More BU 433 papers and project management samples
- BU 433 Unit 1: Agile principles and fit analysis
- BU 433 Unit 2: User stories with acceptance criteria
- BU 433 Unit 3: Backlog with prioritization basis
- BU 433 Unit 5: Sprint plan
- BU 433 Unit 6: Ceremony analysis
- BU 433 Unit 7: Retrospective with a committed change
- BU 433 Unit 8: Hybrid or scaling analysis
- BU 396 Unit 4: Quantitative analysis
- BU 345 Unit 4: Schedule and dependency chart
- BU 434 Unit 4: Current state process model
- BU 436 Unit 4: Regulatory and compliance analysis
BU 433 Unit 4 questions, answered
Why not just estimate in hours?
Because the exercise is examining a different skill. Hours invite false precision and get compared against people rather than against work, while relative sizes stay stable even when the estimate is wrong about duration. Say this in the paper rather than assuming it, since the reasoning for choosing a coarse unit is frequently a criterion in its own right and drafts leave it out.
What if I am estimating alone?
Then write both positions yourself, which is harder but works. Take an item, argue it is small, then argue it is large from a different assumption about what is included, and record what the two readings disagree about. That is the same information a group conversation produces, and stating that you constructed it keeps the record honest.
How do I get a throughput figure with no history?
Assume one and say you assumed it. A first forecast has nothing behind it, which is why the model expects early iterations to replace the guess with observation, and saying that is part of the answer. Give the span your assumption produces, then say how far the forecast would move if the real figure came in a third lower.
Where can I find a free BU 433 Unit 4 sample paper?
A complete BU 433 Unit 4 estimation exercise is available above without charge, including the vote table, the forecast range and margin notes. If your backlog or team history is different, share the instructions and we write a free custom exercise, usually within 48 hours.
Can I do BU 433 Unit 4 without a real team?
Yes, if you say so. Simulate the votes realistically, including disagreements and the reasons behind them, and label the session as a composite. The sample records first-round spreads because the discussion is what instructors grade.