Complete firstComparable subject
Set team, Done, included work types, and point sequence; choose several completed reference stories with stable points.
Without a common frame, values are not comparable.
Method guideAgile
Story Points
A practical method guide: clarify prerequisites and materials, understand the complete process, and look up outputs, pitfalls, and stop criteria.
ComplexityMedium
Timelaufend, 1-5 min je Item
Participants3-9
FormatWorkshop + async
MaturityCanonical
01
Prerequisite
What needs to be finished first
Complete firstEvidence access
Refined items, shared Definition of Done, team-specific point sequence, stable reference stories, and assumption log
Missing data remains visible as uncertainty.
02
Preparation
What needs to be ready before start
Materials
Refined items, shared Definition of Done, team-specific point sequence, stable reference stories, and assumption log
People / roles
Delivery team estimates · product owner clarifies · facilitator protects relative scale
Pre-read
Set team, Done, included work types, and point sequence; choose several completed reference stories with stable points.
Time needed
30–60 minutes for 8–15 refined items; ongoing calibration in refinement.
Setup
Prepare a workspace with Scale · References · Compare · Clarify · Use; separate example from live data.
03
Core question
The one question this method answers
How large is an item relative to known team stories when effort, complexity, and risk are considered together without translating points into hours?
04
Flow
Phases with goal, actions, output and pitfall
Story Points place stories in relation to one another and use comparison rather than a time calendar as the basis for assessment. This makes estimation more consistent and less tied to apparently precise hours, without claiming exactness.
Story Points · working structure
Fictional example
Fictional values show the actual method fields.
| Story | Included | Smaller anchor | Larger anchor | Comparison | Points | Follow-up |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Save cardAdd evidence and rationale. | Build, test, security, rollout | 3 · billing address | 8 · new payment method | More security than 3; existing API less than 8 | 5 | Ready |
| Provider migrationAdd evidence and rationale. | Auth, migration, fallback, certification | 8 · new payment method | 13 · checkout rebuild | Several independent outcomes | 20 | Split 5/8/5; re-estimate |
1. Included
- Save card
- Build, test, security, rollout
- Provider migration
- Auth, migration, fallback, certification
2. Smaller anchor
- Save card
- 3 · billing address
- Provider migration
- 8 · new payment method
3. Larger anchor
- Save card
- 8 · new payment method
- Provider migration
- 13 · checkout rebuild
4. Comparison
- Save card
- More security than 3; existing API less than 8
- Provider migration
- Several independent outcomes
5. Points
- Save card
- 5
- Provider migration
- 20
6. Follow-up
- Save card
- Ready
- Provider migration
- Split 5/8/5; re-estimate
All values are fictional.
- 1
Scale
Point frame
Goal
Point frame: Explain team-specific relative scale and included effort, complexity, and risk.
Inputs for this step
- Set team, Done, included work types, and point sequence; choose several completed reference stories with stable points.
- Refined items, shared Definition of Done, team-specific point sequence, stable reference stories, and assumption log
Actions
- Explain team-specific relative scale and included effort, complexity, and risk.
Output
Point frame
Explain team-specific relative scale and included effort, complexity, and risk.
Quality check
Are points free of hour or person-day conversion?
Pitfall
One point is defined as four hours. Use points only as ratios to team references.
Timing: 5–10 minutes
- 2
References
Story anchors
Goal
Story anchors: Check small, medium, and large completed stories as anchors.
Inputs for this step
- Point frame
Actions
- Check small, medium, and large completed stories as anchors.
Output
Story anchors
Check small, medium, and large completed stories as anchors.
Quality check
Are anchors from the same team under the same Done?
Pitfall
References come from another team or old Done. Recalibrate when team or Done changes.
Timing: 5–10 minutes
- 3
Compare
Relative finding
Goal
Relative finding: Triangulate the item against at least two references and name differences in work, complexity, and risk.
Inputs for this step
- Story anchors
Actions
- Triangulate the item against at least two references and name differences in work, complexity, and risk.
Output
Relative finding
Triangulate the item against at least two references and name differences in work, complexity, and risk.
Quality check
Is the ratio explained through work rather than converted mathematically?
Pitfall
Points are derived from hours times a factor. Record work model and comparison relation.
Timing: 10–15 minutes
- 4
Clarify
Clarified story
Goal
Clarified story: Resolve divergent estimates and large items through scope, uncertainty, and splitting.
Inputs for this step
- Relative finding
Actions
- Resolve divergent estimates and large items through scope, uncertainty, and splitting.
Output
Clarified story
Resolve divergent estimates and large items through scope, uncertainty, and splitting.
Quality check
Do 13+ items have a split or spike?
Pitfall
A large story remains a plannable point block. Split by outcome and re-estimate parts relatively.
Timing: 5–15 minutes
- 5
Use
Team estimate
Goal
Team estimate: Use points for team-internal backlog understanding and historical forecasts; never target velocity or compare teams.
Inputs for this step
- Clarified story
Actions
- Use points for team-internal backlog understanding and historical forecasts; never target velocity or compare teams.
Output
Team estimate
Use points for team-internal backlog understanding and historical forecasts; never target velocity or compare teams.
Quality check
Is the forecast based on own history and communicated as a range?
Pitfall
A velocity target of 30 drives point inflation. Observe velocity without reward; update range with scope change.
Timing: 5–10 minutes
05
Artifact
What comes out at the end
Sketch: what the artifact looks like
Form
Team-relative story-point estimates with reference comparison, clarified assumptions, split needs, and team-internal forecast use.
Versioning / ownership
Record date, team, data state, and review date; preserve prior versions.
Tool alternatives
- Reference stories
- Relative point sequence
- Assumption and split log
story-points-working-template.md
Set subject, data, roles, flow, and review.
Story Points: Worksheet
Question
To be confirmed
Desired outcome
To be confirmed
Scope
Practice run Time: 30–60 minutes for 8–15 refined items; ongoing calibration in refinement.
Complete this worksheet on paper or in your own document during the work.
Preparation for this scope
Method setup
- Materials: Refined items, shared Definition of Done, team-specific point sequence, stable reference stories, and assumption log
- Roles: Delivery team estimates · product owner clarifies · facilitator protects relative scale
- Advance information: Set team, Done, included work types, and point sequence; choose several completed reference stories with stable points.
- Overall time needed: 30–60 minutes for 8–15 refined items; ongoing calibration in refinement.
- Setup: Prepare a workspace with Scale · References · Compare · Clarify · Use; separate example from live data.
Prepare for the work steps
Scale: Point frame
- Set team, Done, included work types, and point sequence; choose several completed reference stories with stable points.
- Refined items, shared Definition of Done, team-specific point sequence, stable reference stories, and assumption log
References: Story anchors
- Point frame
Compare: Relative finding
- Story anchors
Clarify: Clarified story
- Relative finding
Use: Team estimate
- Clarified story
Story Points · working structure
| Story | Included | Smaller anchor | Larger anchor | Comparison | Points | Follow-up |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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
Scale: Point frame
Expected artifact: Point frame
Explain team-specific relative scale and included effort, complexity, and risk.
Entry:
...
- Are points free of hour or person-day conversion?
References: Story anchors
Expected artifact: Story anchors
Check small, medium, and large completed stories as anchors.
Entry:
...
- Are anchors from the same team under the same Done?
Compare: Relative finding
Expected artifact: Relative finding
Triangulate the item against at least two references and name differences in work, complexity, and risk.
Entry:
...
- Is the ratio explained through work rather than converted mathematically?
Clarify: Clarified story
Expected artifact: Clarified story
Resolve divergent estimates and large items through scope, uncertainty, and splitting.
Entry:
...
- Do 13+ items have a split or spike?
Use: Team estimate
Expected artifact: Team estimate
Use points for team-internal backlog understanding and historical forecasts; never target velocity or compare teams.
Entry:
...
- Is the forecast based on own history and communicated as a range?
Open questions and next steps
...
Method guide: https://methodatlas.meierhoff-systems.de/en/methods/story-points/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.
story-points-beispiel.md
Concrete filled scenario, fictional example
Fictional teaching example: Story Points · working structure
| Story | Included | Smaller anchor | Larger anchor | Comparison | Points | Follow-up |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Save card | Build, test, security, rollout | 3 · billing address | 8 · new payment method | More security than 3; existing API less than 8 | 5 | Ready |
| Provider migration | Auth, migration, fallback, certification | 8 · new payment method | 13 · checkout rebuild | Several independent outcomes | 20 | Split 5/8/5; re-estimate |
07
Pitfalls
Recognize symptoms and steer against them
Quick overview, the full text is in the matching phase in the flow
- Point frameOne point is defined as four hours.View in phase
- Story anchorsReferences come from another team or old Done.View in phase
- Relative findingPoints are derived from hours times a factor.View in phase
- Clarified storyA large story remains a plannable point block.View in phase
- Team estimateA velocity target of 30 drives point inflation.View in phase
Trap
Point frame
Symptom
One point is defined as four hours.
What to do
Use points only as ratios to team references.
Trap
Story anchors
Symptom
References come from another team or old Done.
What to do
Recalibrate when team or Done changes.
Trap
Relative finding
Symptom
Points are derived from hours times a factor.
What to do
Record work model and comparison relation.
Trap
Clarified story
Symptom
A large story remains a plannable point block.
What to do
Split by outcome and re-estimate parts relatively.
Trap
Team estimate
Symptom
A velocity target of 30 drives point inflation.
What to do
Observe velocity without reward; update range with scope change.
08
Stop criteria
When to pause, resolve prerequisites, or choose another approach
Stop Scale: Are points free of hour or person-day conversion?
Stop References: Are anchors from the same team under the same Done?
Stop Compare: Is the ratio explained through work rather than converted mathematically?
Stop Clarify: Do 13+ items have a split or spike?
Stop Use: Is the forecast based on own history and communicated as a range?
Finished the method guide?
Go to the profile for purpose, similar methods, and sources or continue to the next method in the catalog.