[happytoexplain]

In my experience, points are more accurate than hours, since most people work with high variability in productivity over time that can't be captured by a mechanism as crude as a stopwatch, so a corollary metric creates a more accurate number than an absolute metric.

[pc86]

We're also talking about measurement after the fact.

"How many points did you spend on that story last week?" is not something anyone is going to accurately answer (and it doesn't mean anything, anyway).

[brianwawok]

Yah exactly. A scrum master will also say never try to equate points to hours, its a losing game.

But being able to look back in May and say we logged 32% of all development hours on bugs is a very useful metric for me the business owner / dev lead.

(In addition we don't do story points on bugs. I am so far away from the by the book agile thing, I don't even know if this is correct or not anymore).

[xtracto]

https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2007/10/26/evidence-based-sch...

Time based software development estimates before the magical "story points" system was in vogue.

[brianwawok]

It’s also more useful when looking back IMO. Points are more meant to be a soft guess for going forward.