in a scrum setup we are facing several planning issues for software development:
- classifying stories by complexity numbers like fibonacci (1,3,5,8,13...) can be difficult because there are so many factors contributing
- the complexity numbers are only of limited utility for time estimation
- quarter time and capacity planning can be very inaccurate using the above
- quarter planning is affected by many other factors which are not technically related to software development
- quarter planning often has to be based on high level goals without detailed stories what are the possible measures to improve sprint and quarter (PI) planning?
You're pointing out real and common challenges in Scrum and agile-at-scale planning. The issues you've listed stem from the disconnect between abstract estimation techniques like story points and the more concrete, often business-driven need for reliable medium- to long-term planning (e.g. quarterly or PI planning).
Here’s a critical breakdown of possible measures to improve both sprint and quarter (PI) planning:
Instead of assigning story points (which are subjective and context-sensitive), use historical flow metrics:
-
Cycle time: How long a story typically takes to complete.
-
Throughput: How many stories or work items are typically completed per sprint.
-
WIP limits: To maintain consistent velocity.
This lets you shift from guessing ("how big is this?") to observing ("how long does work typically take in this system?").
📌 Applicable frameworks: Kanban, or "No Estimates" within Scrum.
Use historical data (e.g. story count, cycle time) to simulate possible delivery outcomes. Tools like Jira’s Monte Carlo simulation plugins, or lightweight tools like ActionableAgile, help you answer:
"What’s the probability we’ll complete X items by date Y?"
This gives stakeholders more probabilistic forecasts rather than artificial point-based guesses.
You're noting that quarter planning is often driven by high-level goals. That suggests a need to decouple layers:
-
Quarterly (PI) planning focuses on capabilities, goals, outcomes (e.g., OKRs).
-
Sprint planning focuses on tactical delivery of ready stories.
📌 Use dual-track agile (discovery/delivery streams) or SAFe’s PI Objectives with business value to align these.
Instead of planning "13 stories of 5 points," define quarterly objectives as outcomes:
- E.g., “Reduce checkout time by 30%”, not “Implement ticket #1234”.
Use these outcomes to guide prioritization in sprints without relying on upfront detailed decomposition.
Frameworks like Objectives & Key Results (OKRs) can support this.
For better sprint planning:
-
Maintain a rolling wave backlog, where top ~2-3 sprints worth of stories are elaborated just-in-time.
-
Use story mapping and impact mapping to connect high-level goals to lower-level deliverables.
This allows pivoting quarter goals into sprint-sized chunks more reliably.
You mentioned “non-technical factors” influencing quarter planning. Instead of treating these as noise:
-
Track and surface external dependencies (e.g., legal, marketing, partner teams).
-
Include buffer for known variability (e.g., seasonal absences, planning overhead).
-
Engage non-dev stakeholders during PI planning so their influence is transparent.
In some contexts (e.g. enterprise environments with strong delivery constraints), time-based estimation buckets ("XS = 1 day", "S = 2 days", etc.) work better for planning and communication than relative Fibonacci-based points.
Only advisable if your team has a high estimation maturity and stable velocity.
Apply retrospectives specifically to your planning process, not just delivery:
-
How accurate were our quarter goals?
-
Where did we under/overestimate and why?
-
What caused the most deviation?
This creates a feedback loop for improving both forecasting and alignment.
Inspired by SAFe and Lean:
-
Do quarterly planning regularly to align teams and objectives.
-
But don’t force delivery to align to quarter boundaries—ship when ready, not when the calendar flips.
This reduces planning stress and unnecessary artificial deadlines.
| Problem | Suggested Approach |
|---|---|
| Difficulty in assigning complexity | Use cycle time + throughput metrics instead |
| Story points not useful for time | Apply Monte Carlo simulations for date-based forecasting |
| Inaccurate quarter capacity | Plan via historical throughput + explicit buffers |
| Non-tech factors affect delivery | Involve stakeholders, track external dependencies |
| Quarter goals lack story detail | Use dual-track agile, story mapping, and OKRs |
Would you like a process diagram or concrete template for quarterly + sprint planning based on this layered approach?
You:
yes, please create a process diagram
ChatGPT:
Image created
Share
Here is the process diagram you requested:
Here's a concrete planning template/example
| Objective ID | Objective Title | Description | OKR Link | Priority | Owner |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| OBJ-001 | Improve Checkout UX | Reduce cart abandonment and friction | KR-1.1 | High | Product Lead |
| OBJ-002 | Enhance Search Performance | Search latency under 500ms on avg. | KR-1.2 | Medium | Tech Lead |
| Epic ID | Title | Related Objective | High-Level Estimate (weeks) | Dependencies | Outcome Metric |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| EP-001 | Mobile Checkout Redesign | OBJ-001 | 5 | UX, Legal approval | Conversion rate change (%) |
| EP-002 | Search Index Refactor | OBJ-002 | 4 | Infra availability | Median search latency (ms) |
| Team | Avg Throughput (Stories/Sprint) | Expected Capacity (Sprints) | Forecasted Story Count | Buffers Applied? |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| A | 8 | 5 | 40 | Yes (15%) |
| B | 10 | 5 | 50 | Yes (20%) |
| Story ID | Title | Epic | Definition of Ready | Size (T-shirt or days) | Risk Level |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ST-1001 | Add "Save for Later" button | EP-001 | ✅ | S (1-2 days) | Low |
| ST-1002 | Refactor search pagination | EP-002 | ❌ (missing tests) | M (3-4 days) | Medium |
| Sprint ID | Goal | Planned Stories (IDs) | Confidence Level (1–5) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sprint 12 | Release MVP checkout redesign | ST-1001, ST-1004, ST-1005 | 4 |
| Sprint 13 | Finish UX polish + A/B testing | ST-1006, ST-1007 | 3 |
| Deliverable | Stakeholder Review Needed? | Demo Format | Release Criteria Met? |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mobile Checkout v1 | Yes (PM + UX) | Clickable demo | TBD |
| Search Metrics Panel | No | Internal metrics | ✅ |
| Metric | Week 1 | Week 2 | Week 3 | Week 4 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Avg Cycle Time (days) | 3.2 | 2.9 | 3.5 | 3.1 |
| Stories Done | 7 | 8 | 6 | 9 |
| Practice | Purpose |
|---|---|
| Layered Planning | Avoids mixing long-term goals with short-term execution details |
| Outcome-based Objectives | Keeps planning anchored to measurable value |
| Historical Throughput | Replaces abstract story point forecasting |
| Incremental Detailing | Maintains agility while preserving quarterly direction |
| Flow Metric Review | Enables data-driven improvements and planning calibration |