Planning Poker Baseline

by admin
Planning

There are various ways to estimate app development projects. One way is by using so-called Story Points. While this type of estimation might not be the easiest, estimating with Story Points in Agile offers benefits to both app developers and clients.

In the early days of agile estimation and planning, T-shirt sizes were used to schedule the poker to assess the relative size of a feature against a baseline. Though this is a very successful way to decouple time from the degree of effort of the features, this was not the most effective way of assigning user storey points. If we look at items like team velocity and product backlog and re. Provide each development team member a deck of estimation poker cards or download the Platinum Edge estimation poker app. Starting with a moderate user story, the players decide on an estimate – using story points – that they can agree on for that user story. This user story becomes the baseline user story.

The Story Points approach uses historical data to compare features of one project to features of a previous similar project to generate a precise estimate.

The gears in the image above are of different sizes and have unique attributes — just like features in a software development project. Imagine there were no way to measure the size of a circle. How could we determine the exact size of each gear? We could use Story Points!

Story points are extremely important for lean startup and Agile methodology. Here are the reasons why.

Let’s walk through each step of the estimation process with Story Points.

Step 1 — Identify a Base Story

Story Points in agile are a complex unit that includes three elements: risk, complexity and repetition.

To find our Base Story, we search for one elementary task that corresponds to internal standards of Definition of Done for User Stories and assign it one Story Point. This will be our Base Story.

Step 2 — Create a Matrix for Estimation

There are two types of scales used for creating estimation matrices: the linear scale (1,2,3,4,5,6,7…) and Fibonacci sequence numbers (0.5, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13 …).

Here at RubyGarage we use Fibonacci sequence numbers. We do this because people are really good at comparing sizes, but not at estimating absolute values such as number of hours. The difference between 1 and 2 can seem insignificant. However, the difference between 1 and 5 is obvious.

When estimating using Fibonacci sequence numbers, we create a matrix with rows for each sequence number and their associated stories. Then, we gather all our stories and start classifying them into rows, comparing the stories to each other and to other completed stories. Notice that our Base Story is already in this matrix in the first row with a value of one Story Point.

Here is one of our matrices:

To assign Story Points to each story, we have a meeting where all specialists that will work on the project get together and play Planning Poker.

Planning Poker is a consensus-based estimation technique to estimate product backlogs. It can be used with various estimating units, but we use Planning Poker with Story Points.

Find out how we build Scrummer - an app for Planning poker.

Here’s how it works:

Planning Poker Estimation Process

  1. Each estimator gets a set of cards;

  2. All estimators select backlog items, discuss features, and ask questions;

  3. When a feature has been fully discussed, each estimator privately (to make the estimate objective) chooses a card to represent his or her estimate;

  4. When all estimators have made their estimates, they reveal their cards at the same time. If all estimates match, estimators select another backlog item and repeat the same process. When estimates differ, the estimators discuss the issue to come to a consensus.

By the end of Planning Poker, we’ve filled out the whole matrix. Our tasks are divided into rows by the number of story points needed to implement them. Finally, we place each backlog item in the appropriate row. There can be several stories in one row.

Step 3 — Planning the Sprint

Now that we have a size estimate, you may be wondering how we convert these sizes into man-hour estimates. Unfortunately, we can’t do this until the first sprint is completed. While the first sprint is in progress we can track the team’s velocity. As soon as the sprint is finished, we’ll know how many Story Points a team can complete per sprint. We use these numbers to forecast the team's performance for the next sprints.

When we have all backlog tasks estimated in terms of Story Points, we can understand how many sprints we’re going to need to complete the project. And finally, we can convert these abstract units into real calendar timelines.

RubyGarage estimates with Story Points in Agile because it’s quick and helps us understand the relative effort required for stories we’ve never faced before. Story Points help us provide our clients with more accurate estimates. Experience and reference points speak better than abstract man-hours.

Struggling with project delays and unrealistic estimates? Contact us and we’ll help you launch your product on time and within your budget.

Planning poker, also called Scrum poker, is a consensus-based, gamified technique for estimating, mostly used to estimate effort or relative size of development goals in software development. In planning poker, members of the group make estimates by playing numbered cards face-down to the table, instead of speaking them aloud. The cards are revealed, and the estimates are then discussed. By hiding the figures in this way, the group can avoid the cognitive bias of anchoring, where the first number spoken aloud sets a precedent for subsequent estimates.

Planning poker is a variation of the Wideband delphi method. It is most commonly used in agile software development, in particular in Scrum and Extreme Programming.

The method was first defined and named by James Grenning in 2002[1] and later popularized by Mike Cohn in the book Agile Estimating and Planning,[2] whose company trade marked the term [3] and a digital online tool.[4]

Process[edit]

Rationale[edit]

Planning Poker Baseline

The reason to use planning poker is to avoid the influence of the other participants. If a number is spoken, it can sound like a suggestion and influence the other participants' sizing. Planning poker should force people to think independently and propose their numbers simultaneously. This is accomplished by requiring that all participants show their card at the same time.

Equipment[edit]

Planning poker is based on a list of features to be delivered, several copies of a deck of cards and optionally, an egg timer that can be used to limit time spent in discussion of each item.

The feature list, often a list of user stories, describes some software that needs to be developed.

The cards in the deck have numbers on them. A typical deck has cards showing the Fibonacci sequence including a zero: 0, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21, 34, 55, 89; other decks use similar progressions with a fixed ratio between each value such as 1, 2, 4, 8, etc.

Planning Poker Baseline Meaning

The reason for using the Fibonacci sequence instead of simply doubling each subsequent value is because estimating a task as exactly double the effort as another task is misleadingly precise. A task which is about twice as much effort as a 5, has to be evaluated as either a bit less than double (8) or a bit more than double (13).

Several commercially available decks use the sequence: 0, ½, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 20, 40, 100, and optionally a ? (unsure), an infinity symbol (this task cannot be completed) and a coffee cup (I need a break, and I will make the rest of the team coffee). The reason for not exactly following the Fibonacci sequence after 13 is because someone once said to Mike Cohn 'You must be very certain to have estimated that task as 21 instead of 20.' Using numbers with only a single digit of precision (except for 13) indicates the uncertainty in the estimation. Some organizations[which?] use standard playing cards of Ace, 2, 3, 5, 8 and king. Where king means: 'this item is too big or too complicated to estimate'. 'Throwing a king' ends discussion of the item for the current sprint.

Smartphones allow developers to use mobile apps instead of physical card decks. When teams are not in the same geographical locations, collaborative software can be used as replacement for physical cards.

Planning Poker Baseline Rules

Procedure[edit]

At the estimation meeting, each estimator is given one deck of the cards. All decks have identical sets of cards in them.

The meeting proceeds as follows:

  • A Moderator, who will not play, chairs the meeting.
  • The Product Owner provides a short overview of one user story to be estimated. The team is given an opportunity to ask questions and discuss to clarify assumptions and risks. A summary of the discussion is recorded, e.g. by the Moderator.
  • Each individual lays a card face down representing their estimate for the story. Units used vary - they can be days duration, ideal days or story points. During discussion, numbers must not be mentioned at all in relation to feature size to avoid anchoring.
  • Everyone calls their cards simultaneously by turning them over.
  • People with high estimates and low estimates are given a soap box to offer their justification for their estimate and then discussion continues.
  • Repeat the estimation process until a consensus is reached. The developer who was likely to own the deliverable has a large portion of the 'consensus vote', although the Moderator can negotiate the consensus.
  • To ensure that discussion is structured; the Moderator or the Product Owner may at any point turn over the egg timer and when it runs out all discussion must cease and another round of poker is played. The structure in the conversation is re-introduced by the soap boxes.
Planning poker baseline meaning

The cards are numbered as they are to account for the fact that the longer an estimate is, the more uncertainty it contains. Thus, if a developer wants to play a 6 he is forced to reconsider and either work through that some of the perceived uncertainty does not exist and play a 5, or accept a conservative estimate accounting for the uncertainty and play an 8.

Benefits[edit]

Planning Poker Baseline Template

A study by Moløkken-Østvold and Haugen[5] reported that planning poker provided accurate estimates of programming task completion time, although estimates by any individual developer who entered a task into the task tracker was just as accurate. Tasks discussed during planning poker rounds took longer to complete than those not discussed and included more code deletions, suggesting that planning poker caused more attention to code quality. Planning poker was considered by the study participants to be effective at facilitating team coordination and discussion of implementation strategies.

See also[edit]

Planning Poker Baseline Games

  • Comparison of Scrum software, which generally has support for planning poker, either included or as an optional add-on.

References[edit]

  1. ^'Wingman Software Planning Poker - The Original Paper'. wingman-sw.com. Retrieved 5 July 2017.
  2. ^Mike Cohn (November 2005). 'Agile Estimating and Planning'. Mountain Goat Software. Retrieved 1 February 2008.
  3. ^'Planning poker - Trademark, Service Mark #3473287'. Trademark Status & Document Retrieval (TSDR). 15 January 2008. Retrieved 26 May 2014.
  4. ^Cohn, Mike. 'Planning Poker Cards: Effective Agile Planning and Estimation'. Mountain Goat Software. Mountain Goat Software. Retrieved 30 March 2016.
  5. ^K Moløkken-Østvold, NC Haugen (10–13 April 2007). 'Combining Estimates with Planning Poker—An Empirical Study'. 18th Australian Software Engineering Conference. IEEE: 349–58. doi:10.1109/ASWEC.2007.15. ISBN978-0-7695-2778-9.
  • Mike Cohn (2005). Agile Estimating and Planning (1 ed.). Prentice Hall PTR. ISBN978-0-13-147941-8.
Retrieved from 'https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Planning_poker&oldid=988983629'