methodatlas
Method guideAgile

Affinity Estimation

A practical method guide: clarify prerequisites and materials, understand the complete process, and look up outputs, pitfalls, and stop criteria.

ComplexityMedium
Time30-90 min
Participants3-12
FormatWorkshop
MaturityEstablished
Plan Affinity Estimation
01

Prerequisite

What needs to be finished first

Complete firstComparable subject

Set item set, included work, and shared Definition of Done; remove unclear or unlike items first.

Without a common frame, values are not comparable.
Complete firstEvidence access

Comparable refined items, shared Definition of Done, relative scale, reference items, and discussion pile

Missing data remains visible as uncertainty.
02

Preparation

What needs to be ready before start

Materials

Comparable refined items, shared Definition of Done, relative scale, reference items, and discussion pile

People / roles

Delivery team sorts · product owner clarifies · facilitator protects silent flow

Pre-read

Set item set, included work, and shared Definition of Done; remove unclear or unlike items first.

Time needed

30–60 minutes for 20–50 comparable items; analyse disputed items afterwards.

Setup

Prepare a workspace with Frame · Anchors · Sort · Conflicts · Calibrate; separate example from live data.

03

Core question

The one question this method answers

How can the team quickly order many comparable items by relative size and discuss only genuine uncertainty?

04

Flow

Phases with goal, actions, output and pitfall

Affinity estimation places tasks relative to known reference items and condenses the assessment into clusters. Shared sorting uses pattern recognition and makes outliers visible for focused clarification.

Affinity Estimation · working structure

Fictional example

Fictional values show the actual method fields.

Affinity Estimation · working structure
ItemIncludedReferenceFirst placementConflictOutcomeFollow-up
Delete tokenAdd evidence and rationale.Build, test, security, rolloutSmall anchor: validation ruleSmallNoneSmallReady
Save cardAdd evidence and rationale.Build, test, security review, rolloutMedium anchor: provider tokenMedium/LargeGuest users and migration unclearMediumScope fixed
Provider migrationAdd evidence and rationale.Auth, migration, fallback, certificationLarge anchor: new payment methodBeyond largeSeveral outcomesClarification pileSplit + spike

  1. 1. Included

    Delete token
    Build, test, security, rollout
    Save card
    Build, test, security review, rollout
    Provider migration
    Auth, migration, fallback, certification

  2. 2. Reference

    Delete token
    Small anchor: validation rule
    Save card
    Medium anchor: provider token
    Provider migration
    Large anchor: new payment method

  3. 3. First placement

    Delete token
    Small
    Save card
    Medium/Large
    Provider migration
    Beyond large

  4. 4. Conflict

    Delete token
    None
    Save card
    Guest users and migration unclear
    Provider migration
    Several outcomes

  5. 5. Outcome

    Delete token
    Small
    Save card
    Medium
    Provider migration
    Clarification pile

  6. 6. Follow-up

    Delete token
    Ready
    Save card
    Scope fixed
    Provider migration
    Split + spike

All values are fictional.

Reference · original teaching example

  1. 1

    Frame

    Comparison set

    Goal

    Comparison set: Set comparable items and one shared meaning of size.

    Inputs for this step

    • Set item set, included work, and shared Definition of Done; remove unclear or unlike items first.
    • Comparable refined items, shared Definition of Done, relative scale, reference items, and discussion pile

    Actions

    • Set comparable items and one shared meaning of size.

    Output

    Comparison set

    Set comparable items and one shared meaning of size.

    Quality check

    Do all items include the same work types and Done standard?

    Pitfall

    Research, features, and operations projects share one set. Split the set or align the sizing dimension.

    Timing: 5–10 minutes

  2. 2

    Anchors

    Size anchors

    Goal

    Size anchors: Place a known small, medium, and large item as relative orientation.

    Inputs for this step

    • Comparison set

    Actions

    • Place a known small, medium, and large item as relative orientation.

    Output

    Size anchors

    Place a known small, medium, and large item as relative orientation.

    Quality check

    Are anchors understood and from the same work domain?

    Pitfall

    Anchors are target values rather than completed comparison work. Use only known work with a shared Done definition.

    Timing: 5–10 minutes

  3. 3

    Sort

    First sort

    Goal

    First sort: Team members silently place items relative to anchors; an item may be moved once.

    Inputs for this step

    • Size anchors

    Actions

    • Team members silently place items relative to anchors; an item may be moved once.

    Output

    First sort

    Team members silently place items relative to anchors; an item may be moved once.

    Quality check

    Was placement independent before discussion or numeric anchoring?

    Pitfall

    The first person explains every placement and anchors others. Place silently and discuss only conflicts.

    Timing: 10–20 minutes

  4. 4

    Conflicts

    Clarification pile

    Goal

    Clarification pile: On a second move request, put the item in discussion; resolve differences in scope and risk.

    Inputs for this step

    • First sort

    Actions

    • On a second move request, put the item in discussion; resolve differences in scope and risk.

    Output

    Clarification pile

    On a second move request, put the item in discussion; resolve differences in scope and risk.

    Quality check

    Does discussion expose different work models rather than preferences?

    Pitfall

    Items move back and forth and stall the pass. After one move, separate the next conflict deliberately.

    Timing: 10–15 minutes

  5. 5

    Calibrate

    Relative estimate

    Goal

    Relative estimate: Name groups, inspect boundaries, and split or refer large and unclear items.

    Inputs for this step

    • Clarification pile

    Actions

    • Name groups, inspect boundaries, and split or refer large and unclear items.

    Output

    Relative estimate

    Name groups, inspect boundaries, and split or refer large and unclear items.

    Quality check

    Are neighbourhoods plausible and open items assigned a next step?

    Pitfall

    The order is converted into falsely precise hours. Keep relative groups and assumptions; forecast separately from throughput data.

    Timing: 5–10 minutes

05

Artifact

What comes out at the end

Sketch: what the artifact looks like

Affinity Estimation · Relative Size MapViele Backlog Items schnell entlang einer Größenachse grob schätzen
Affinity Estimation Relative Size MapDie Skizze zeigt Backlog-Karten, die entlang einer relativen Größenachse in Size Buckets sortiert und als grobe Schätzung dokumentiert werden.Viele Items grob relativ schätzenErst still sortieren, dann nur Grenzen, Ausreißer und große Items besprechen.Input ItemsBacklog-Karten sammelnRelative Size MapStill von klein nach groß einsortierenEstimate OutputAusreißer und Grenzen klärenLoginExportSSOReportPortalGrenzfälle kurz klären13er splitten oder spiken1kleinTooltipCopy3überschaubarFilterAPI5mittelExportSSO8großReportPortal13splittenAuditSpikekleingroßGrouped EstimatesItems je Size BucketUnclear ItemsAnnahmen klärenSplit CandidatesGroße Items schneiden
Form

Relatively ordered and calibrated items with references, marked conflicts, assumptions, and split or clarification actions.

Versioning / ownership

Record date, team, data state, and review date; preserve prior versions.

Tool alternatives
  • Relative sizing lane
  • Reference items
  • Discussion and clarification pile

affinity-estimation-working-template.md

Set subject, data, roles, flow, and review.

Affinity Estimation: Worksheet

Question

To be confirmed

Desired outcome

To be confirmed

Scope

Practice run Time: 30–60 minutes for 20–50 comparable items; analyse disputed items afterwards.

Complete this worksheet on paper or in your own document during the work.

Preparation for this scope

Method setup

  • Materials: Comparable refined items, shared Definition of Done, relative scale, reference items, and discussion pile
  • Roles: Delivery team sorts · product owner clarifies · facilitator protects silent flow
  • Advance information: Set item set, included work, and shared Definition of Done; remove unclear or unlike items first.
  • Overall time needed: 30–60 minutes for 20–50 comparable items; analyse disputed items afterwards.
  • Setup: Prepare a workspace with Frame · Anchors · Sort · Conflicts · Calibrate; separate example from live data.

Prepare for the work steps

Frame: Comparison set

  • Set item set, included work, and shared Definition of Done; remove unclear or unlike items first.
  • Comparable refined items, shared Definition of Done, relative scale, reference items, and discussion pile

Anchors: Size anchors

  • Comparison set

Sort: First sort

  • Size anchors

Conflicts: Clarification pile

  • First sort

Calibrate: Relative estimate

  • Clarification pile

Affinity Estimation · working structure

ItemIncludedReferenceFirst placementConflictOutcomeFollow-up
Delete token
Save card
Provider migration
  • Delete token: Add evidence and rationale.
  • Save card: Add evidence and rationale.
  • Provider migration: Add evidence and rationale.

The blank worksheet contains prompts only.

Reference · original teaching example

Frame: Comparison set

Expected artifact: Comparison set

Set comparable items and one shared meaning of size.

Entry:

...

  • Do all items include the same work types and Done standard?

Anchors: Size anchors

Expected artifact: Size anchors

Place a known small, medium, and large item as relative orientation.

Entry:

...

  • Are anchors understood and from the same work domain?

Sort: First sort

Expected artifact: First sort

Team members silently place items relative to anchors; an item may be moved once.

Entry:

...

  • Was placement independent before discussion or numeric anchoring?

Conflicts: Clarification pile

Expected artifact: Clarification pile

On a second move request, put the item in discussion; resolve differences in scope and risk.

Entry:

...

  • Does discussion expose different work models rather than preferences?

Calibrate: Relative estimate

Expected artifact: Relative estimate

Name groups, inspect boundaries, and split or refer large and unclear items.

Entry:

...

  • Are neighbourhoods plausible and open items assigned a next step?

Open questions and next steps

...

Method guide: https://methodatlas.meierhoff-systems.de/en/methods/affinity-estimation/run-sheet

06

Example output

Concrete filled scenario, fictional example

Fictional example for orientation. Counts and timings describe this case and are not universal requirements.

affinity-estimation-beispiel.md

Concrete filled scenario, fictional example

Fictional teaching example: Affinity Estimation · working structure

ItemIncludedReferenceFirst placementConflictOutcomeFollow-up
Delete tokenBuild, test, security, rolloutSmall anchor: validation ruleSmallNoneSmallReady
Save cardBuild, test, security review, rolloutMedium anchor: provider tokenMedium/LargeGuest users and migration unclearMediumScope fixed
Provider migrationAuth, migration, fallback, certificationLarge anchor: new payment methodBeyond largeSeveral outcomesClarification pileSplit + spike
07

Pitfalls

Recognize symptoms and steer against them

Quick overview, the full text is in the matching phase in the flow

  1. Comparison setResearch, features, and operations projects share one set.View in phase
  2. Size anchorsAnchors are target values rather than completed comparison work.View in phase
  3. First sortThe first person explains every placement and anchors others.View in phase
  4. Clarification pileItems move back and forth and stall the pass.View in phase
  5. Relative estimateThe order is converted into falsely precise hours.View in phase
08

Stop criteria

When to pause, resolve prerequisites, or choose another approach

Stop Frame: Do all items include the same work types and Done standard?
Stop Anchors: Are anchors understood and from the same work domain?
Stop Sort: Was placement independent before discussion or numeric anchoring?
Stop Conflicts: Does discussion expose different work models rather than preferences?
Stop Calibrate: Are neighbourhoods plausible and open items assigned a next step?

Method after Agile Community. The method emerged from, or was spread through, the agile community of practice. Curated with 1 sources.

Sources: Affinity Estimation

Flow, timeboxes, and pitfalls are editorially curated practice recommendations based on the listed sources.

Where to go next?

Story Splitting method illustration showing its working structure
Agile
Story Splitting

Splits items that remain too large or unclear into smaller slices.

Paper illustration for Planning Poker.
Agile
Planning Poker

Later calibrates rough groups with a more precise team estimate.

View in playbookImprove Estimation and ForecastingMove from intuition to shared sizing, uncertainty, and delivery forecast.

Finished the method guide?

Go to the profile for purpose, similar methods, and sources or continue to the next method in the catalog.

Go to profileMore methods