Purpose
When estimates within the team diverge too much, it puts differing expectations on a common test bench. It separates rough complexity from unspoken assumptions.
Agile Decision method
Planning Poker
Compares stories relatively, exposes knowledge gaps, and produces a shared estimate with traceable assumptions.
Sie lässt alle eine Schätzung auf Basis derselben Information bilden und vergleicht anschließend die Spannweite. So werden Wissenslücken und verdeckte Risiken sichtbar, bevor eine Zahl zum Dogma wird.
Which relative size can the delivery team support after independent selection, simultaneous reveal, and clarification of the highest and lowest assumptions?
- Participants
- 3-9
- Time
- 5–15 minutes per prepared backlog item; usually 1–3 rounds.
The practice is repeated across comparable work items.
Ready
Estimable item
Product owner explains goal and acceptance criteria; team clarifies scope and Definition of Done.
Anchors
Relative frame
Compare suitable smaller and larger reference items without calling a number for the current item.
Choose
Private cards
All delivery participants independently choose a hidden card for total effort, complexity, and risk.
Clarify
Resolved difference
Highest and lowest estimators explain assumptions first; team updates scope and risks.
Revote
Team estimate
Choose privately and reveal together again; store estimate and assumptions when understanding is sufficient.
Add new evidence at review and version decisions with the prior state.
A good fit when
Wenn Schätzungen im Team zu stark auseinandergehen, bringt sie unterschiedliche Erwartungen auf einen gemeinsamen Prüfstand. Sie trennt grobe Komplexität von ungesagten Annahmen.
Ideal for
- Sprint planning
- Backlog refinement
- Team alignment
Not good for
- Very large backlogs
- Portfolio rough sizing
- Items without context
Outputs
Team estimate
Supportable relative estimate with exposed assumptions, risks, clarifications, and marked split/spike needs.
Planning Poker · working structure
Fictional example
Fictional values show the actual method fields.
| Backlog item | Acceptance/DoD | References | Round 1 | Difference | Clarification | Round 2 | Outcome |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Save cardAdd evidence and rationale. | Provider token; logged-in users; browser tests; security review | 3 save address; 8 new payment method | 3, 5, 5, 8, 13 | 13 sees management/compliance; 3 knows token API | Card management out; security review stays | 5, 5, 5, 5, 8 | Team supports 5; assumption recorded |
| Provider migrationAdd evidence and rationale. | Migration, fallback, certification still unclear | 8 new payment method; 20 checkout migration | 13, 20, 20, 40, ∞ | Unknown certification and multiple outcomes | Split item; certification spike | No second round | Not estimable; split + spike |
1. Acceptance/DoD
- Save card
- Provider token; logged-in users; browser tests; security review
- Provider migration
- Migration, fallback, certification still unclear
2. References
- Save card
- 3 save address; 8 new payment method
- Provider migration
- 8 new payment method; 20 checkout migration
3. Round 1
- Save card
- 3, 5, 5, 8, 13
- Provider migration
- 13, 20, 20, 40, ∞
4. Difference
- Save card
- 13 sees management/compliance; 3 knows token API
- Provider migration
- Unknown certification and multiple outcomes
5. Clarification
- Save card
- Card management out; security review stays
- Provider migration
- Split item; certification spike
6. Round 2
- Save card
- 5, 5, 5, 5, 8
- Provider migration
- No second round
7. Outcome
- Save card
- Team supports 5; assumption recorded
- Provider migration
- Not estimable; split + spike
All values are fictional.
First step
Select an item with goal and acceptance criteria; show estimation unit, Definition of Done, and 2–3 stable reference items.
Good to do first
Deep dive
How it works
It has everyone form an estimate based on the same information and then compares the spread. This surfaces knowledge gaps and hidden risks before a number turns into dogma.
In detail
Planning Poker combines independent judgment with shared clarification. Secret selection reduces anchoring effects because strong voices do not shape the group immediately. Large differences are not treated as errors, but as signals for different assumptions, unclear acceptance criteria, or hidden risks. After a short discussion the team estimates again until a workable relative size emerges.
Facilitation
Prepare clear items, acceptance criteria, and a defined scale. Timebox the discussion so estimating does not turn into design work. When outliers appear, ask about assumptions rather than justification, and split items that remain too large or unclear.
The method guide walks execution through 5 phases, timing, 5 pitfalls, and clear stop criteria.
Open method guideYour perspective
Does this method help with your work?
Your feedback helps shape the next improvements to methodatlas.
Sources and topics
Artifact templates
Planning Poker: WorksheetSet subject, evidence, roles, flow, and review.markdown
Planning Poker: WorksheetSet subject, evidence, roles, flow, and review.
markdownplanning-poker-working-template.md
Set subject, evidence, roles, flow, and review.
Planning Poker: Worksheet
Question
To be confirmed
Desired outcome
To be confirmed
Scope
Practice run Time: 5–15 minutes per prepared backlog item; usually 1–3 rounds.
Complete this worksheet on paper or in your own document during the work.
Preparation for this scope
Method setup
- Materials: Refinement-ready items, acceptance criteria, shared Definition of Done, reference items, and hidden cards 0, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 20, 40, 100, ?, ∞
- Roles: Product owner explains · delivery team estimates · facilitator moderates · experts answer questions
- Advance information: Select an item with goal and acceptance criteria; show estimation unit, Definition of Done, and 2–3 stable reference items.
- Overall time needed: 5–15 minutes per prepared backlog item; usually 1–3 rounds.
- Setup: Prepare a workspace with Ready · Anchors · Choose · Clarify · Revote; separate example from live data.
Prepare for the work steps
Ready: Estimable item
- Select an item with goal and acceptance criteria; show estimation unit, Definition of Done, and 2–3 stable reference items.
- Refinement-ready items, acceptance criteria, shared Definition of Done, reference items, and hidden cards 0, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 20, 40, 100, ?, ∞
Anchors: Relative frame
- Estimable item
Choose: Private cards
- Relative frame
Clarify: Resolved difference
- Private cards
Revote: Team estimate
- Resolved difference
Planning Poker · working structure
| Backlog item | Acceptance/DoD | References | Round 1 | Difference | Clarification | Round 2 | Outcome |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Save card | |||||||
| Provider migration |
- Save card: Add evidence and rationale.
- Provider migration: Add evidence and rationale.
The blank worksheet contains prompts only.
Reference · original teaching example
Ready: Estimable item
Expected artifact: Estimable item
Product owner explains goal and acceptance criteria; team clarifies scope and Definition of Done.
Entry:
...
- Can every estimator explain included work and success criteria?
Anchors: Relative frame
Expected artifact: Relative frame
Compare suitable smaller and larger reference items without calling a number for the current item.
Entry:
...
- Does everyone use the same scale and references?
Choose: Private cards
Expected artifact: Private cards
All delivery participants independently choose a hidden card for total effort, complexity, and risk.
Entry:
...
- Did every estimator choose before reveal?
Clarify: Resolved difference
Expected artifact: Resolved difference
Highest and lowest estimators explain assumptions first; team updates scope and risks.
Entry:
...
- Was the difference explained rather than averaged?
Revote: Team estimate
Expected artifact: Team estimate
Choose privately and reveal together again; store estimate and assumptions when understanding is sufficient.
Entry:
...
- Can the team support the value and name the decisive assumption?
Open questions and next steps
...
Method guide: https://methodatlas.meierhoff-systems.de/en/methods/planning-poker/run-sheet
Alternatives and neighbors
Fitting alternatives with decision guidance, followed by other related methods.
Agile
Bucket System
Instead of Planning Poker, choose Bucket System when you want to sort many items into rough size classes without estimating each one individually.
Decision Making
Wideband Delphi
Instead of Planning Poker, choose Wideband Delphi when you want to make estimates more robust with several rounds of experts.
Agile
T-Shirt Sizing
Sorts backlog items roughly by reference sizes and flags early on which items will later need splitting or clarification.
Agile
Ideal Days
Moves backlog, sprint work, and team flow toward a concrete result through "explain the ideal day unit", "calibrate with a reference item", and "do not confuse it with calendar days".
Agile
Affinity Estimation
Has the team group items silently, discusses deviations, and produces consistent relative size pictures.
Agile
Story Points
Moves backlog, sprint work, and team flow toward a concrete result through "choose reference stories", "define the scale", and "interpret velocity only within the team".
Constraints and origin
LowWorkshop + async2-5 min je Item
Profile
- Method form
- Decision method
- Participants
- 3-9
- Time
- 2-5 min je Item
- Maturity
- Canonical
- Origin
- James Grenning
Next up: Story Splitting