What is Planning Poker?

Planning Poker (also known as Scrum Poker or Pointing Poker) is a collaborative, gamified technique for estimating the effort or size of work items in Agile projects. It emphasizes relative estimation – comparing the size of tasks to each other – rather than absolute estimation methods (like predicting exact hours). It is one of several Agile estimation techniques but is most commonly used by software development teams practicing Scrum or other Agile methodologies. The technique can be applied in any project where team estimation is needed. In Planning Poker, each team member selects a card (usually from a special deck of numbered cards) to privately estimate a task, and then all cards are revealed simultaneously. This process encourages consensus-based estimation and avoids anchoring bias (i.e. no one is influenced by another's estimate before revealing their own). By discussing differing estimates and reaching agreement, teams can estimate user stories or tasks in a fun yet structured way.

Originally, Planning Poker was introduced by James Grenning in 2002 as a refinement of the Wideband Delphi estimation method (source). It was later popularized by Mike Cohn (who even trademarked the term) through his 2005 book Agile Estimating and Planning (source). Today, it's a well-established practice for Agile teams to estimate product backlog items (like user stories) during backlog refinement or sprint planning sessions. The "poker" aspect refers to the playing cards used for voting on estimates, adding a game-like element that makes the process engaging and inclusive.

How Does Planning Poker Work?

At its core, Planning Poker works by harnessing the collective wisdom of the team and ensuring everyone's voice is heard equally. The workflow of a typical Planning Poker session is as follows:

• Team assembly and roles: The estimation meeting brings together the development team (and sometimes testers, designers, etc.), usually facilitated by a Scrum Master or team lead acting as a moderator. The Product Owner or requester of the work is present to clarify requirements but may not vote. (Learn more about Planning Poker and Scrum Roles.) Each estimator (team member) is given an identical deck of Planning Poker cards (or joins an online Planning Poker tool).

• Use of a special card deck: Each Planning Poker card deck contains a predefined set of values. A common set is the modified Fibonacci sequence: 0, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 20, 40, 100, etc., often including special cards like "?" (unsure), ∞ (too large to estimate), or a coffee cup (break needed). (Explore different card sets.) These values represent story points or relative effort – they increase non-linearly to reflect greater uncertainty for larger tasks. The use of sequences like Fibonacci helps facilitate quicker consensus by simplifying the choices; deciding between 5, 8, or 13 is often easier than debating finer points between, say, 6 and 7. For example, a jump from 5 to 8 or 8 to 13 points illustrates that larger tasks carry more uncertainty, rather than implying exact multiples of effort. By limiting the card values to a coarse scale, the team avoids false precision and focuses on relative sizing. (Another related technique, sometimes called Magic Estimation, also leverages this logarithmic nature of human perception to compare tasks relatively, often using Fibonacci as a reference.)

  Key Idea: The non-linear scale (like Fibonacci) helps teams focus on relative size and acknowledges that estimating larger, more complex items involves greater uncertainty.

  

  Example of a printable Planning Poker card deck with Fibonacci values and special cards. Using a fixed set of values (like 0, ½, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 20, 40, 100, ? and coffee cup) helps highlight uncertainty and prevent overly precise estimates. You can also create your own online session.

• Private estimation: For each user story or task, the Product Owner (or whoever is requesting the estimate) presents the story to the team, explaining its details and acceptance criteria. Team members have the chance to ask questions and discuss the work to ensure everyone has a common understanding of what's being estimated. Once discussion is done, each estimator selects a card privately that represents their estimate of the story's size or effort (source). Importantly, they do this without revealing their choice to others.

  Action: Each estimator privately selects a card representing their view of the item's relative effort or complexity.

• Simultaneous reveal: After everyone has chosen a card, all participants reveal their cards at the same time (e.g., by turning cards face-up) (source). This simultaneous "vote" prevents any single estimate from biasing the others (avoiding the anchoring effect). Now the table will show a range of estimates from the team.

• Discussion and consensus: If all team members selected the same value, that estimate is quickly accepted as the consensus for that item. Often, however, there will be a spread of chosen values (especially for complex or unclear tasks). In that case, the team discusses the differences. Typically, the person who picked the highest value and the one who picked the lowest are each given a chance to explain their reasoning ("why did you think it would be so hard/easy?"). This discussion often uncovers assumptions, risks, or aspects of the task that others hadn't considered. However, it's important that this discussion fosters genuine contribution, guarding against groupthink where team members might passively agree with senior colleagues instead of sharing their own valuable perspective. After discussion, the team votes again on the same story (either immediately or after a short break). This cycle of estimate → reveal → discuss repeats until the group converges on a consensus estimate that everyone can agree on (source). The moderator may impose a timebox (sometimes using an egg timer) to keep the conversation efficient (source).

  Crucial Step: Discussing the estimates, especially the highest and lowest, is where valuable insights about assumptions, risks, and understanding are shared.

By the end of a Planning Poker session, each backlog item discussed will have an agreed-upon estimate. The strength of this method lies in the healthy debate it generates and the collective knowledge it captures. All team members contribute, newer or quieter members have an equal voice (since everyone must play a card), and the whole team buys into the final estimates. Studies have found that group estimates via Planning Poker can be more accurate than individual estimates, thanks to the pooling of insights and the iterative refinement through discussion. The technique is also fun and engaging – the game-like format can make a normally dry activity more enjoyable and team-building.

Use beyond software: While Planning Poker is an agile estimation staple for software teams, it's not limited to software development. Any cross-functional team that needs to estimate work can adopt this technique. For example, marketing or design teams might estimate campaign tasks or design efforts using a similar card-based approach, and project teams in construction or R&D could estimate phases of work. The key ingredients are tasks that need estimating, a team with different perspectives, and a desire for consensus. Smaller teams tend to find it easiest to reach consensus, but even larger groups can split into sub-teams or use facilitated discussion to make Planning Poker work for them. In essence, if you have a backlog of items (features, projects, user stories, etc.) and want a group estimate, Planning Poker can bring structure and clarity to the process. Ready to get started? Create an online session.

How to Play Planning Poker (Step-by-Step)

If you're a Scrum Master, team lead, or anyone looking to run a Planning Poker session, here's a step-by-step guide. This will walk you through how to play Planning Poker with your team:

1. Prepare the Cards or Tool: Ensure each participant has a complete Planning Poker card deck (physical cards) or access to an online Planning Poker app. Explain the estimation scale you'll use – for example, the Fibonacci sequence 0, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 20, 40, 100 is very common. Make sure everyone understands what the scale represents (usually story points – a relative unit of effort). If using physical cards, distribute one deck to each estimator. If using a digital tool, have everyone join the session on their devices. (Some teams also prepare an optional timer to limit discussion per item, and a whiteboard or digital board to note discussion points.)

2. Present the Story or Item: The moderator (often the Product Owner or Scrum Master) picks the next user story or task from the backlog and reads it aloud to the team. The story should be clearly stated (e.g., via a user story description) including the desired outcome. This ensures that everyone is focused on the same item and understands its context. The moderator or product owner should be available to answer any questions on requirements or acceptance criteria.

3. Discuss and Ask Questions: The team now discusses the item to clarify details and surface any assumptions. This is a critical step – team members can talk about how they might implement the story, potential complexities, dependencies, or risks involved. For example, they might ask: Do we have the design ready?, How many people might need to work on this?, Are there any unknowns or external dependencies? (source). The goal is not to solutionize in detail, but to ensure everyone has a roughly equal understanding of what the work entails. Take this time to resolve ambiguities: a few minutes of clarification can prevent widely divergent estimates or nasty surprises later. (If the conversation reveals the story is too large or vague, the team might choose to split the story or do a quick spike and come back later rather than estimate something poorly defined.)

   Highlight: The goal of discussion isn't perfect design, but shared understanding of the 'what' and potential complexities before voting.

4. Estimate Silently: Once the discussion winds down and everyone feels ready to estimate, each team member selects a card in private. Without revealing it, choose the card that best represents your estimate of the story's size or effort (source). Remember, these numbers are relative; a "5" might mean a task of medium complexity if your team treats a "1" as a very small, quick task. If a team member feels completely unsure, they might pick the "?" card (if available) to indicate confusion, or request more discussion. It's important that during this time no one says any numbers out loud or gives hints – everyone should think independently.

   Action: Each estimator privately selects a card representing their view of the item's relative effort or complexity.

5. Reveal the Cards: Once all participants have a card selected, the moderator calls for a reveal and everyone turns their chosen card face-up simultaneously (source). Now you can see each person's estimate. Often, you'll get a spread of values (which is okay!). For instance, three people might have picked "8", one picked "5", and one picked "13". Take note of the range and any outliers (highest and lowest). If by chance all the cards show the same number, congrats – you've reached instant consensus, and you can record that estimate and move on to the next item. However, usually there will be some variance that needs to be addressed.

6. Discuss Differences and Reach Consensus: If the revealed estimates differ, the moderator facilitates a quick discussion. Typically, start by having the outliers explain their reasoning – ask the person(s) who gave the highest estimate to explain why they think the task is larger or riskier, and the person(s) who gave the lowest estimate to explain why they believe it's simpler (source). This is where the team can uncover misunderstandings or new insights. Perhaps someone thought of a scenario or requirement others missed, or someone else has past experience that makes them see the task as easier than others expect. After each side shares, allow a brief open discussion so the team can consider these points. Then vote again on the same item: each member selects a card (they can stick with their previous estimate or adjust based on the discussion) and all reveal together. The range of answers will usually narrow down. Repeat this cycle until the team converges on a single value or at least a very tight range. You may not always get perfect unanimity, but the aim is a consensus that everyone can live with (for example, everyone's card is either an 8 or a 5, and after discussion the person with 8 is okay going with 5). Once consensus is reached, record that estimate for the story. Then proceed to the next backlog item and go back to step 2.

   Crucial Step: Discussing the estimates, especially the highest and lowest, is where valuable insights about assumptions, risks, and understanding are shared.

7. Wrap Up: After all selected stories have been estimated (or time for the session runs out), conclude the session. The team now has a set of estimates for upcoming work, which can be used to plan the sprint or project timeline. It's good to briefly reflect on the session: did any story cause a lot of debate? Are there follow-up actions (like splitting an overly large story, doing research on an unclear one, or noting assumptions made)? The Scrum Master or facilitator can note these. Also, thank the team for their participation – Planning Poker works best when everyone is honest and engaged, so acknowledge that effort.

(The above process can be done in-person with physical cards or remotely using an online Planning Poker tool. Remote teams often use digital apps or integrations (e.g., in Jira, Trello, or dedicated websites) that allow everyone to pick and reveal cards virtually (source). The steps remain the same, with perhaps a bit more emphasis on clear communication when discussing via video call.)

Benefits of Planning Poker in Agile Teams

Planning Poker has become popular for good reason – it offers several benefits that improve the estimation process and team dynamics:

• Avoids Anchoring Bias: Because all estimates are revealed simultaneously, no one gets influenced by someone else blurting out a number first. This ensures each team member provides an honest, independent estimate based on their own perspective. It leads to more truthful estimates and prevents a situation where everyone simply goes along with the highest paid person's guess.

• Encourages Full Team Participation: Every estimator must play a card, so everyone on the team contributes. This gives equal voice to all team members, including those who might be junior or typically quiet (source). It often empowers team members to share insights they otherwise might keep to themselves. The game format can make it easier for people to speak up since it's just "playing a card."

• Fosters Discussion and Knowledge Sharing: When there's a difference in estimates, the ensuing discussion is incredibly valuable. Team members explain their thought process, which often uncovers hidden requirements, risks, or dependencies. This identifies gaps in understanding early (source). The team ends up learning from each other – for example, a tester might raise a scenario that developers hadn't considered, or a developer might clarify that a certain task is easier thanks to existing libraries. This shared understanding improves the quality of planning.

  Benefit: Diverging estimates trigger discussions that uncover hidden complexities, assumptions, and requirements, leading to shared understanding and better planning.

• Builds Consensus and Commitment: Since the final estimate is agreed upon by the whole team, there is a stronger sense of commitment to delivering that story within the estimate. The team collectively owns the estimate, rather than it feeling "imposed" by a manager or single planner. This can improve morale and trust in the estimates.

• Relative Estimation is Fast and Flexible: By using abstract story points or relative sizes (instead of hours), teams can estimate quickly without getting bogged down in details. Planning Poker's use of coarse numbers (e.g., Fibonacci series) keeps estimates high-level and easier to think about. It's more about comparing items ("Is Story A roughly twice as complex as Story B?") than guessing exact durations. This often proves faster and less contentious, especially for long-term planning.

• More Accurate over Time: When teams regularly practice Planning Poker, they often calibrate their understanding of story points and improve estimation accuracy. One study noted that Planning Poker estimates tend to be more accurate than individual estimates for the same tasks. Over multiple sprints, the team also builds up historical data (e.g., how many story points they complete on average) which can improve future forecasting. The process of discussing outlier estimates means that uncertainties are addressed, which can lead to more realistic numbers.

• Fun and Team-Building: The gamified nature (using cards, sometimes joking with "coffee break" cards) can make the session more enjoyable than a typical meeting. Teams often find the process lighthearted and a break from routine. That fun factor should not be underestimated – it can make planning sessions something people look forward to rather than dread. Also, as a collaborative exercise, Planning Poker helps build camaraderie and a sense of teamwork as everyone works together to solve the "puzzle" of estimating each story.

• Leverage Integrations: For remote or hybrid teams, using Planning Poker tools that integrate with your existing communication platforms can streamline the process. Look for integrations with tools like Google Meet, Zoom, or Microsoft Teams to run sessions directly within your calls. Many tools also integrate with project trackers like Jira or Linear.

Of course, like any technique, Planning Poker isn't a silver bullet. It assumes the team has a baseline understanding of the work – if a story is truly novel or everyone is clueless, the estimates might still be wild guesses (in such cases, a spike or research story might be needed). Also, reaching consensus can sometimes give a false sense of certainty; teams should remember that an estimate is just an educated guess, not a promise. Facilitators need to actively manage discussions to ensure balanced participation and avoid pitfalls. Overall, though, the benefits of Planning Poker in promoting healthy discussion and shared ownership often outweigh the potential downsides, especially when the team follows some best practices and is mindful of common challenges.

Tips and Best Practices for Effective Planning Poker

To get the most out of Planning Poker, consider these tips and best practices used by experienced Scrum Masters and Agile teams:

• Break Down Large Items First: If a user story or task seems very large or complex (team members are inclined to throw an "∞" card or the highest value), that's a red flag. It's often better to split the story into smaller pieces before estimating. Planning Poker works best when estimating items of roughly manageable size (for example, something that at most could be done in a few days by a couple of people). If not, you may find everyone constantly voting the maximum card or feeling unsure.

• Agree on a Reference Scale: Calibrate the team by discussing one or two reference stories that you all agree on (e.g., "Story X is definitely a 5 and Story Y is a 2"). This helps especially with new teams or new scales. Having anchor examples in mind gives people a comparative sense when voting. Over time, as the team sees completed stories and their point values, this internal calibration improves.

• Ensure Understanding Before Estimating: Encourage questions during the discussion phase. If someone is quiet, the facilitator might directly ask them if they have any concerns. Sometimes a simple clarification can bring estimates closer. Make sure everyone knows what is being asked and what the estimate covers – e.g., are we estimating just dev effort, or dev+test, or overall work? Aligning on this definition is crucial for votes based on the same assumptions. Crucially, ensure all team members grasp the concept of relative estimation and the meaning behind the chosen scale, resisting the urge to translate points directly back into hours, especially when new to the process.

• Timebox the Discussion: It's easy for estimation meetings to drag on if the team dives too deep into design details or tangents. Use a timebox per item (some teams use 5–10 minutes per story as a rule of thumb, maybe less for small items). Tools like an egg timer or a timing app can enforce this. If time is up and no consensus, consider capturing the main points and moving on – or take a quick break and return with fresh eyes. Timeboxing keeps the session lively and prevents fatigue.

  

• Moderate Fairly: The Scrum Master or facilitator should encourage balanced participation. After a reveal, ensure that both high and low estimators get to explain without interruption. If one person consistently pushes their view, gently remind the team to consider all perspectives. The goal is consensus, not persuasion by volume. Sometimes taking a short break or moving to the next story and coming back can defuse tension on a contentious item.

• Use Online Tools for Remote Teams: If your team is distributed, make use of the many online Planning Poker tools (such as PlanningPoker.live, etc.) that provide digital card decks and automated reveals. These tools often have extra features like timers, the ability for observers (like Product Owners) to watch without voting, and exporting results to Jira or other project trackers. Make sure everyone knows how to use the tool and test it upfront to avoid technical hiccups during the session.

• Don't Force a Consensus Unrealistically: While consensus is the aim, sometimes you might settle for a majority or a compromise if time is short. For instance, if most people are at 8 and one at 5 and one at 13 after multiple rounds, the team might agree to call it an 8 and move on. The outliers should feel heard and be able to live with the decision. Remember that estimates can be revised later if needed; the important part is the conversation that happened. Some teams use the average of votes as the estimate if consensus is hard, but use this sparingly as it can undermine the collaborative intent. It's better to figure out why there's disagreement. Only average or compromise as a last resort.

• Maintain Transparency: Especially in remote settings, documenting key discussion points or assumptions alongside the final estimate can be helpful for future reference and accountability. Online tools often facilitate this.

• Review Estimates After Completion: A great learning tool is to occasionally look back at a story after it's done and compare actual effort to the estimated points. If there were significant deviations (too high or too low), discuss why. This isn't to blame anyone, but to improve future estimating (maybe the team consistently underestimates front-end tasks, or a certain type of work always turns out harder). Over time, this retrospective view will sharpen the team's estimation skills and also validate (or adjust) the point scale being used.

By following these practices, teams can make their Planning Poker sessions more efficient and effective. The idea is to keep the exercise lightweight but focused – it should be about quickly getting a sense of relative size, not detailed task planning. If done right, Planning Poker helps the team build a shared understanding of the work and trust in each other's judgment.

Common Challenges and Considerations

While Planning Poker offers many advantages, teams should be aware of potential challenges to use it effectively:

• Consensus Difficulties & Groupthink: Reaching genuine consensus can be challenging. Sometimes, less experienced or quieter team members might conform to the estimates of more senior or vocal colleagues without fully engaging or sharing their own reasoning. This "groupthink" undermines the goal of leveraging diverse perspectives. Facilitators must actively encourage all members to participate and defend their estimates.

• Misuse of Cards and Scales:

  • The "?" Card: While useful for indicating lack of understanding, excessive use of the "?" card can bog down sessions in detailed discussions that should perhaps happen outside the estimation meeting, slowing progress.
  • Limited Scale Issues: Using a fixed scale like Fibonacci (e.g., up to 13 or 20) is helpful for relative sizing but can be problematic for very large stories. If a story clearly exceeds the largest value, forcing the team to pick the maximum card might hide the true size and lead to scope creep or incomplete work within a sprint. Such large items should ideally be broken down first.

• Overcomplicating or Misunderstanding Relative Sizing: Teams new to Agile or Planning Poker might struggle with the abstract nature of story points. There can be a tendency to try and convert points back to hours or days, or to meticulously quantify every small aspect, losing the benefit of quick, high-level relative estimation. Consistent practice and coaching on the why behind relative sizing are key.

• Resistance to Change: Like any new process, adopting Planning Poker can face resistance. Team members might be unfamiliar with Agile principles, uncomfortable with the perceived ambiguity of relative estimates, or reluctant to empower all members equally in the estimation process, preferring traditional top-down approaches. Successful implementation requires buy-in, clear explanation of the benefits, and ongoing support.

• Requires Baseline Understanding: The technique works best when the team has at least a foundational understanding of the work involved. For entirely novel or poorly understood tasks, Planning Poker might produce unreliable guesses. In these cases, a preliminary research task (spike) might be more appropriate before attempting estimation.

Being mindful of these challenges allows teams to address them proactively, refine their process, and maximize the value they get from Planning Poker.

Using Planning Poker Outside of Software Development

While Planning Poker is most often discussed in the context of software development and Agile scrum teams, its principles can benefit any team that needs to estimate work collaboratively. The technique is domain-agnostic: it's about experts coming together to pool their knowledge and arrive at an estimate.

Some examples of where Planning Poker (or a variation of it) can be used outside software:

• Marketing and Creative Teams: Imagine a marketing team estimating the effort required for various campaign tasks (writing content, designing graphics, scheduling social media, etc.). They could use Planning Poker cards to estimate the relative effort or complexity of each campaign component. This ensures the whole team (writers, designers, analysts) agrees on what's considered a "small" vs "large" task, and it can reveal if, say, designers see a particular request as very time-consuming while others thought it was trivial. The marketing team can then adjust scope or timelines based on these estimates.

• Product Design and UX: A UX design team could use Planning Poker to estimate design stories or research tasks. For instance, estimating the effort for a user research study versus a simple UI mockup. Each team member (researchers, designers, prototypers) might have different perspectives on difficulty. Through Planning Poker, they can surface those differences early.

• IT Operations or DevOps: Even in operational settings, such as estimating the effort to set up infrastructure or migrate servers, a team can use Planning Poker. Different engineers might have knowledge of different parts of the system, and by discussing their estimates (why one thinks a migration is a 2 versus another thinking it's an 8), they can uncover tasks like "we need to update the schema, which is why it's higher."

• Project Management and Other Industries: In construction project planning, a team of architects, engineers, and contractors might estimate phases of a project (though they often have other methods). But a simplified Planning Poker could be used in early project estimation to get a rough idea from all stakeholders. Likewise, in industries like healthcare administration or nonprofit projects, wherever a group needs to estimate workloads (grant proposal efforts, event planning tasks), the concept of hidden voting and discussing gaps can be useful. It promotes cross-functional understanding and a democratic approach to planning.

When using Planning Poker outside software, you might adapt the terminology (maybe call it "estimation poker" or just "team estimation game") and adjust what the "points" mean (it could be hours, days, or a custom unit of effort). The key is still the conversation and convergence on a shared estimate. By mentioning and embracing these other use cases, you can highlight the versatility of Planning Poker. It's not just a tool for developers, but for any collaborative team looking to improve how they forecast and plan their work.

(One note: Larger organizations with very big teams might find a full-group Planning Poker session cumbersome if dozens of people are estimating together. In such cases, breaking into smaller groups or using a representative from each sub-team to play can help. The method scales best with smaller teams, as larger groups increase discussion time exponentially.)

Conclusion: Why Use Planning Poker?

Planning Poker has cemented its place as a valuable tool in the Agile toolkit for good reason. By turning estimation into a collaborative and engaging game based on relative sizing, it effectively sidesteps common pitfalls like anchoring bias and ensures all team members contribute their unique perspectives. The structured process of private voting followed by open discussion not only leads to more realistic and collectively owned estimates but also serves as a powerful mechanism for knowledge sharing and clarifying requirements.

While particularly popular in software development, its core principles of leveraging group wisdom and fostering consensus are applicable to any team needing to estimate complex work. However, teams should remain aware of potential challenges such as groupthink, misuse of estimation scales, and the initial difficulty some may have with abstract relative sizing. By understanding both the benefits and the potential pitfalls, teams can adapt the process effectively. Whether you're estimating user stories, campaign tasks, or project phases, Planning Poker offers a practical, often fun, way to improve forecasting accuracy, build team alignment, and ultimately deliver better results. It transforms estimation from a potentially contentious chore into a valuable team-building exercise focused on shared understanding.

Try Planning Poker today!

Better sprint planning and estimation for the whole team. Ready to estimate stories in your remote team? Start a free planning poker session now!

Start Planning