Method guideAgile

Planning Poker

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

ComplexityLow

Time2-5 min je Item

Participants3-9

FormatWorkshop + async

MaturityCanonical

Plan Planning Poker

Prerequisite

What needs to be finished first

Complete firstClear boundary

Select an item with goal and acceptance criteria; show estimation unit, Definition of Done, and 2–3 stable reference items.

Without a boundary, cases, periods, or variables become mixed.

Complete firstEvidence access

Refinement-ready items, acceptance criteria, shared Definition of Done, reference items, and hidden cards 0, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 20, 40, 100, ?, ∞

Missing sources remain visible as uncertainty.

Preparation

What needs to be ready before start

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, ?, ∞

People / roles

Product owner explains · delivery team estimates · facilitator moderates · experts answer questions

Pre-read

Select an item with goal and acceptance criteria; show estimation unit, Definition of Done, and 2–3 stable reference items.

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.

Core question

The one question this method answers

Which relative size can the delivery team support after independent selection, simultaneous reveal, and clarification of the highest and lowest assumptions?

Flow

Phases with goal, actions, output and pitfall

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.

Planning Poker · working structure

Fictional example

Fictional values show the actual method fields.

Planning Poker · working structure
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.

Reference · original teaching example

1
Ready
Estimable item
Goal
Estimable item: Product owner explains goal and acceptance criteria; team clarifies scope and Definition of Done.
Inputs for this step
- 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, ?, ∞
Actions
- Product owner explains goal and acceptance criteria; team clarifies scope and Definition of Done.
Output
Estimable item
Product owner explains goal and acceptance criteria; team clarifies scope and Definition of Done.
Quality check
Can every estimator explain included work and success criteria?
Pitfall
An unclear scope still receives a number. Play question mark, record open decision, and return item to refinement.
Timing: 2–4 minutes
2
Anchors
Relative frame
Goal
Relative frame: Compare suitable smaller and larger reference items without calling a number for the current item.
Inputs for this step
- Estimable item
Actions
- Compare suitable smaller and larger reference items without calling a number for the current item.
Output
Relative frame
Compare suitable smaller and larger reference items without calling a number for the current item.
Quality check
Does everyone use the same scale and references?
Pitfall
One person anchors the group by saying this is a five. Show reference work only; card choice stays private.
Timing: 1–2 minutes
3
Choose
Private cards
Goal
Private cards: All delivery participants independently choose a hidden card for total effort, complexity, and risk.
Inputs for this step
- Relative frame
Actions
- All delivery participants independently choose a hidden card for total effort, complexity, and risk.
Output
Private cards
All delivery participants independently choose a hidden card for total effort, complexity, and risk.
Quality check
Did every estimator choose before reveal?
Pitfall
Cards or chat values appear one by one. Lock the tool until complete and reveal simultaneously.
Timing: 1 minute
4
Clarify
Resolved difference
Goal
Resolved difference: Highest and lowest estimators explain assumptions first; team updates scope and risks.
Inputs for this step
- Private cards
Actions
- Highest and lowest estimators explain assumptions first; team updates scope and risks.
Output
Resolved difference
Highest and lowest estimators explain assumptions first; team updates scope and risks.
Quality check
Was the difference explained rather than averaged?
Pitfall
The group averages 3 and 13 to get 8. Resolve different work models; split or spike when the item is too large.
Timing: 2–5 minutes
5
Revote
Team estimate
Goal
Team estimate: Choose privately and reveal together again; store estimate and assumptions when understanding is sufficient.
Inputs for this step
- Resolved difference
Actions
- Choose privately and reveal together again; store estimate and assumptions when understanding is sufficient.
Output
Team estimate
Choose privately and reveal together again; store estimate and assumptions when understanding is sufficient.
Quality check
Can the team support the value and name the decisive assumption?
Pitfall
Endless rounds force unanimity. After 1–3 rounds with persistent spread, stop and record question, split, or spike.
Timing: 1–3 minutes

Artifact

What comes out at the end

Sketch: what the artifact looks like

Planning Poker · Hidden Team EstimationClarify the backlog item, choose cards independently, reveal spread, and discuss assumptions before the next estimate

Form

Supportable relative estimate with exposed assumptions, risks, clarifications, and marked split/spike needs.

Versioning / ownership

Record date, owner, source state, and review date; preserve prior versions.

Tool alternatives

Hidden Planning Poker deck
Reference items
Assumption and decision log

planning-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

Example output

Concrete filled scenario, fictional example

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

planning-poker-beispiel.md

Concrete filled scenario, fictional example

Fictional teaching example: Planning Poker · working structure

Backlog item	Acceptance/DoD	References	Round 1	Difference	Clarification	Round 2	Outcome
Save card	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 migration	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

Pitfalls

Recognize symptoms and steer against them

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

Estimable itemAn unclear scope still receives a number.View in phase
Relative frameOne person anchors the group by saying this is a five.View in phase
Private cardsCards or chat values appear one by one.View in phase
Resolved differenceThe group averages 3 and 13 to get 8.View in phase
Team estimateEndless rounds force unanimity.View in phase

Stop criteria

When to pause, resolve prerequisites, or choose another approach

Stop Ready: Can every estimator explain included work and success criteria?

Stop Anchors: Does everyone use the same scale and references?

Stop Choose: Did every estimator choose before reveal?

Stop Clarify: Was the difference explained rather than averaged?

Stop Revote: Can the team support the value and name the decisive assumption?

Where to go next?

Agile

Story Splitting

Splits items that the estimate reveals as too large into smaller slices.

Agile

Scrum

Uses the team estimate for sprint planning within the Scrum framework.

View in playbookCreate Backlog ReadinessMove from rough ideas to shippable stories with examples, acceptance criteria, and estimation.

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 profile More methods

Planning Poker · working structure

1. Acceptance/DoD

2. References

3. Round 1

4. Difference

5. Clarification

6. Round 2

7. Outcome

Estimable item

Relative frame

Private cards

Resolved difference

Team estimate

planning-poker-working-template.md

Planning Poker: Worksheet

Question

Desired outcome

Scope

Preparation for this scope

Method setup

Prepare for the work steps

Ready: Estimable item

Anchors: Relative frame

Choose: Private cards

Clarify: Resolved difference

Revote: Team estimate

Planning Poker · working structure

Ready: Estimable item

Anchors: Relative frame

Choose: Private cards

Clarify: Resolved difference

Revote: Team estimate

Open questions and next steps

planning-poker-beispiel.md

Fictional teaching example: Planning Poker · working structure

Estimable item

Relative frame

Private cards

Resolved difference

Team estimate

Where to go next?

Finished the method guide?