What are the best ways to handle disagreements in user story estimation meetings?

For any disagreements in user story estimation meetings, people should try to explain their reason for a particular estimation.All members should be willing to listen and then decide what's the best way to approach for a story so that the team feels valued.Planning poker is one such effective method that we've used in such meetings.Everyone should be given a chance to give their opinion on any such story.

Remember that disagreements are a natural part of the estimation process, and the goal is not to eliminate them but to handle them constructively. By following strategies, we can promote a more collaborative and effective approach to user story estimation meetings

First off, having disagreements is a good sign that the team is open and growing. If a disagreement is a major one, let's say 3 story points (SPs) and 10 SPs, after carefully listening to one another's arguments, repeat the round of Planning poker. Usually this helps around consensus and results in either splitting the story (if too complex and big) or refining acceptance criteria. Eventually, the mindset is that estimations are our best guesses at the moment and we use them to learn and apply learning to future estimations. Care should be taken, however, not to have such dysfunctions as using velocity for performance evaluation. If so, it will be a natural booster for inflated estimates and lose its value of knowledge sharing and learning.

Handle disagreements in user story estimation meetings by fostering open communication, encouraging team members to express their perspectives, and facilitating collaborative discussions. Establish a culture that values diverse viewpoints and seeks consensus, and leverage techniques like Planning Poker to promote a more accurate and collective estimation process.

The disagreements can be handled by taking some time to listen to different opinions and not merely make it an argument, instead hosting it as productive discussion to uncover all the possibilities and points to be considered before proceeding the estimation.

In my experience, it's key that everyone gets equal time to share their thoughts. This can be tricky when it's a subject everyone cares about. Extroverts can (unintentionally) dominate discussion. One method to achieve equality: - Have people seated round a table/virtual table - Ask a question e.g. "what do you think we need to consider when estimating this?" - Ask for a volunteer to answer this question - When they finish answering they ask the question to the person clockwise from them - Continue round the table in this way Limit the time each contributor can take e.g. 2 mins Make it clear that no interruptions are allowed This approach calms conflict down and encourages people to think about other points of view.

Just to add a different perspective to enhance the structured methodologies adopted. A lot of times there will be instances where we come across similar dependencies as in the past. And this would bring about a clarity on exactly how much time would be required to clear them. This is a usual occurrence in agile teams, wherein the dependencies are held up due to pure bureaucratic issues. All such instances should be considered along with the structured estimation patterns and give the practical viability for the tickets tagged to a sprint.

Use a structured technique such as planning poker or affinity mapping to handle disagreements in user story estimation meetings. This allows everyone to express their opinions and reach a consensus, avoiding endless debates and arguments.

Planning Poker is a fantastic tool! Use the 3 rounds of voting, and in the end, if the team doesn't agree on the estimations, use the highest value. Be conservative and respect people's fears, opinions and points of view. This tool also helps with timeboxing every work you need to get estimated.

Having disagreements is not a flaw in team collaboration; detecting them before we start working on any Product Backlog item is the purpose of the whole process. We rather have them now than during a Sprint.

When you have a difference of opinion, it's usually due to a lack of context. Encourage explanation and asking questions. Make sure both sides get to speak. Make sure both sides understand the other. Debate pros and cons, then have someone who's able to make a decision. Acknowledge that the decision may not be perfect, but perfect is the opposite of good enough.

Create a safe space for open dialogue and encourage all member to participate and ensure everyone's voice is heard. Practive active listening by giving your full attention, asking clarifiying question.

If there are disagreements regarding the estimations, it shows that the team cares about the product - which is a positive aspect. It is possible that you may not fully understand the overall impact of the user story, so it’s important to ensure clarity. However, at times it is necessary to reach a consensus and negotiate. Just ensure that you and your team comprehend the impact.

Listen, learn and encourage the same behaviour. In the end, you may not get consensus, but for sure you will be on the right path to get buy-in from the entire team. And in that case, you'll be successful in having the entire team on the same page.

I would state it differently: "FOCUS ON THE PROBLEM WE ARE TRYING TO SOLVE". Every time we focus on the Value or the Solution itself, we tend to deviate the solution from the original problem. And we may not even address it in the end. So, focus on the problem, fall in love with the customer's problems, and your team will bring the best solutions for that!

When estimating, it's crucial to emphasize the collaborative aspect. As a team, we need to focus on progress since there are many user stories that need assessment and we want to spend out time where it provides the most value. As a facilitator during poker planning, I always ensure that I hear out the outliers in the first round. The second round typically shows more agreement as people adjust their scoring. If the team is torn between two scores next to each other on the Fibonacci scale (e.g., 3 and 5), we decide to go with the higher score to account for team differences. If we consistently go through three rounds, there may be a larger collaborative issue at play, or the stories may not be ready for estimates and require refinement.

Yes, this is important! Park the conversations if some major issues impede the team from estimating some work, and agree on the proper action, like: (1) Maybe the team needs a spike to analyze the issue and find out its complexity; (2) Sometimes the team needs a Proof of Concept to validate some assumptions; (3) Maybe there is a need for a follow-up session with a Subject Matter Expert, Customer or Stakeholder.

I tend to apply the 5 minute rule of thumb. If you can't gain consensus within 5 minutes, consider going for the good enough measure of effort. Ask the team whether the value of debating further is greater than the value of moving on. If teams get wrapped up in taking an hour to estimate one item, they will take forever to make much of a dent on the backlog items then need to estimate for the coming iteration. The value of estimation is to quickly get an appreciation of the range of perspectives, tease out whether there is further work to do to uncover more information (create a Spike) or whether the understanding is good enough to enable the team to move on. 10 items estimated well enough vs 1 item debated at considerable length...?

During the estimation process, the discussions and conversations are often more valuable than the final numerical estimate or sizing, regardless of whether it's expressed in story points or some other format. Disagreements and diverse perspectives can be beneficial because they allow team members to express their reasoning about why a particular customer requirement might be straightforward or challenging. These discussions enable the team to delve into the intricacies of what's needed to deliver an increment that effectively addresses the customer's problem.

Based on my experience, nurturing a tight-knit team culture can transform disagreements into productive discussions, indicating the team's growth and increasing confidence. When managed effectively, these disagreements are characterized by respect, honesty, a willingness to defend viewpoints, and an openness to change one's stance following further discussion.

Story estimations help teams clarify stories, quantify the effort, and reach a shared understanding on the complexity of requirements. However, teams could be aversive to estimations because they are new, don't understand it well, or find it too cumbersome and exhaustive. Conflicts in estimations are a byproduct of the individual differences in experience, expertise, and skills. Encouraging diversified thinking through open dialogue helps surface the plausible risks, hidden dependencies, and uncertainties. It enables the team to navigate through complex scenarios to understand what's acceptable and possible. The PO as a presenter and SM as a facilitator play a tacit role in promoting such constructive disagreements through collaboration.

Differing viewpoints and disputes often accompany the estimation of user stories. These disparities arise due to individual competencies and insights. Effectively managing such disagreements involves either establishing a precise user story scope, breaking down the user story into more granular tasks if feasible, or guiding the estimation process based on factual data. It's worth noting that on occasion, these dissensions and the array of perspectives can actually promote the team's growth and refinement.

When disagreements arise in user story estimation meetings, encourage open communication and collaboration. Discuss differing perspectives to uncover underlying concerns and aim for a shared understanding. Techniques like Planning Poker can facilitate anonymous voting, allowing team members to express opinions without bias. If debates persist, consider deferring the discussion for a later time or seeking input from a subject matter expert. The key is to maintain a respectful environment that values diverse opinions while working towards a consensus for accurate and reliable estimations.