Talk:Planning poker

Why remove it?

it is an acurate description of an estimate method that works well.

One of Wikipedia's core policies is WP:Verifiability. This article has no sources to allow other editors to verify the accuracy of the information. The WP:Notability guideline defines what topics are suitable for inclusion. If you can edit this article to conform to Wikipedia's guidelines and policies then it should remain. But if it does not conform then it should be removed. Sbowers3 (talk) 00:00, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

There are some references here: http://www.planningpoker.com/references.html. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.108.133.200 (talk) 13:43, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Saying so here (on the Talk page) doesn't help. What's needed is in the article page to add inline citations to reliable sources. Sbowers3 (talk) 15:13, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I have added one reliable resource from the Journal of Systems and Software, publisher Elsevier and Autor Mahnic, Viljan. Oliver Emmler, Heidelberg (talk) 08:16, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

---

The process includes the following step; 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. That is why the result reported in the Australian paper estimated by individual experts, achieved similar estimation accuracy as the planning poker tasks is no surprise. The outcome is readily predicable using statistical analysis. The link between "planning poker" and Fibonacci numbers is not stated. In a nutshell, this article doesn't have value other than to propose a convoluted and time consuming method in lieu of estimates by individual experts.

---

The sentence about using Fib is very vague and provides little value. There is a good explanation why the math works here: http://www.yakyma.com/2012/05/why-progressive-estimation-scale-is-so.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 105.27.198.70 (talk) 05:12, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Contesting the proposed deletion

I'm going to have to disagree with the proposed deletion. As noted above, it is an accurate description of an estimating method that works well. The article does need to be cleaned up to point to proper references, and should also be re-written / re-organized to indicate that it's an estimation method, not just some obscure card game. Now, I guess I should probably do so... Shanemcd (talk) 21:16, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Note from the original author

I could include citations and page references from Mike Cohn's book about ancoring and planning poker - is that ok? dave who walks (talk) 16;30, 1st February 2008 (GMT)

It's probably okay in its current form. Thanks to other editors for providing references. I turned them into footnotes which all show up in the References section. It's always good to have more references but the ones there are good enough to show notability and verifiability. The IEEE reference is a very good indication of notability. Sbowers3 (talk) 02:44, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

In the interests of balance

A criticism section should be included. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.179.82.197 (talk) 12:29, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Why? Is there criticism about this estimation method? 200.114.149.47 (talk) 13:20, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

proposed merge

Planning poker is part of Scrum (software development), so I'm proposing a merge.

Also, since Planning poker seems part of Wideband delphi, Agile software development and Extreme programming, I'm not sure why it needs to exist as a separate article. EChastain (talk) 21:42, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

It is also a method of its own right, which can be used in project management setups other than scrum. A lemma of its own is in order. --Mussklprozz (talk) 11:43, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Planning poker is a method on it's own for the estimation of tasks/workpackages. It is not only used in Scrum but can be used whereever it is necessary to leverage communication within a team and get estimates for planning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oemmler (talk • contribs) 11:48, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

The physical meaning

Why nothing about Enumerated type here? And also there is nothing about Punched cards (historical aspect). These cards remind me tickets for an exam at the university User:Bo85 (talk) 01:27, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

What is there to say about them? --McGeddon (talk) 22:40, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

I can say relating to web-development. List of discussed functions for development: for different functional there are different languages - high and low-level. The numerical value of the cards - the relative units of the complexity (story points) - different for different languages. Influence of participants depends on their knowledge of languages. The values on the cards for different people will mean a different time-slot/evaluation work from their perspective, depending on what level of the languages they work. For a different-level language-people assessment will vary depend on current story implementation language. But the standard of a particular language is the quality criterion (the direction of language development itself is also significant). Performance-critical/resource-constrained places ("keypoints" of the software) is written using ​​low-level languages (C/C++/Asm? - backend-related). Development using a low-level languages ​​can be even more long, but more cleverly relating to the amount of memory and program run time duration - taking and freeing the memory in C/C++ need to be manual for good program working in these critical places. It is a necessity. This code is written in man-hours more long time (card value has different meaning - more long time unit/period for development of the functional) on the one hand. On the other hand scripting languages ​​(frontend-related) works with memory automatically, but consume resources more strongly. Need to do a lot of uniform work using these languages, but work is less valuable from this point of view. Also instead of coffee I think that rowan, hawthorn and rosehips tea from pharmacy - better. RippleSax (talk) 13:30, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Planning poker remind time sharing (investing) using protocol with marker. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RippleSax (talk • contribs) 14:58, 28 November 2015 (UTC)