Skip to main content

How we do Sprint Planning 2

Many people think Sprint Planning 2 (the second half of the Sprint Planning meeting) is just about creating and estimating the list of tasks for the selected product backlog. This cannot be a bigger over-simplification! Here is simple approach to conducting an effective Sprint Planning 2 Meeting.

In Sprint Planning 1, the Implementation Team and the Product Owner negotiated which "stories" would be implemented in the coming sprint. The team made sure it understood the stories, in particular the acceptance criteria (I recommend agreeing on 'How to Demo').

During Sprint Planning 2, the Implementation Team must figure out how to solve the problem it took on in Sprint Planning 1. This consists of two parts:
  1. A solution concept - a design, architecture or whatever, which explains how the problem is to be solved/feature is to be realized.
  2. A list of tasks - what steps must the team do to get each selected backlog item to the state 'done'.
The goal is not an absolutely perfect design or task planning. It's about getting a clear enough concept that the team can start work.

In my coaching, I have found it effective when the team members work in pairs in a solve-present-solve-present sequence. They brainstorm the technical concept, then present it to the team. Depending on the feedback, they may need to enhance, modify or possibly even rethink the concept. Again working in pairs, they then create task cards, showing the route to "done." Finally, each pair presents these tasks to the entire team.

Let us assume the team has committed to 6 stories, that there are 6 team members, and that the team is doing 2 week sprints. So the Sprint Planning 2 is time-boxed to 2 hours. The team forms 3 pairs and each pair works on two stories. So the agenda for the meeting is as follows:

Agenda for Sprint Planning 2

14.00 - 14.05 Start - pair off and divide the stories among the pairs.
14.05 - 14.35 Concept - each pair brainstorms on the technical concept (producing a diagram, text or something which can be presented to the rest of the team)
14.35 - 15.05 Present - each pair presents their solutions to rest if the team. The presentation and Q&A time for each story is time-boxed to a total 5 Minutes (30 Minutes / 6 Stories )
15.05 - 15.35 Tasks - each pair creates a set of tasks to get their stories to 'done'. Each task represents a goal for the day. The tasks are not estimated, but should be completable in one working day or less. This saves a lot of effort!
15.35 - 16.00 Present - again, each pair presents the tasks needed to get their stories to done. In the course of discussion, they may discover missing or unnecessary tasks. Each story is time-boxed to 4 Minutes (25 Minutes / 6 Stories ).

This approach ensures that at least 2 people have thought intensively about each story. It gives structure to the meeting, so the team can accomplish the meeting within the time-box. And by presenting and discussing the solution within the whole team, the rest of the team is much better positioned to help out during the execution of the sprint.


Unknown said…
Hello Peter,

I've translated your interesting post in french :
Comment réaliser le Sprint Planning 2

Regards, Fabrice
Peter said…
Merci Beaucoup, Fabrice!
Anonymous said…
Hi Peter. I consider the sprint planning 2 both difficult and crucial, so I appreciate your advice on this.
I wonder though whether it is really possible to present, ask&answer questions about a solution for a story in 5 minutes, let alone to present the tasks for a story, discuss them and discover missing/unnecessary ones
in 4 minutes.
Peter said…
Hi Lukas,


The short answer is: Of course you can! Just set and stick to the time box. When the time is up, the time is up.

The goal of the Sprint Planning 2 is not an absolutely perfect design or task planning. It's about getting a clear enough concept about how to move forward that your team can start.

This approach is somewhere between an individually produced concept and planning poker. By getting the relatively large and diverse team thinking about the story, you get people with differing perspectives to look at the problem and provide feedback.

I would suggest you try it and see how it works (and post a comment here to share your experience)! Sometimes trying is more effective than discussing!
Anonymous said…
ok, thanks, i will.
Dov TSAL SELA said…
I like the idea of pair analysis! Thanks!
Unknown said…
Great post. Very helpful! I will try to apply this principle in my next Planning
Anonymous said…
Still relevant mid 2019. I share this post very commonly still.
One thing I've added/changed:

When the teams present to each other I really trigger them to look for flaws and try to "break the solution" that was presented. This has 2 benefits:
1. I've found that developers always have critical feedback and want to share that
2. It makes it more fun

Offcourse you need to create the right environment for this (trust), but it can bring Planning part 2 to a next level!
Peter said…
Thanks, anonymous! That's a nice tip!

Popular posts from this blog

Sample Definition of Done

Why does Scrum have a Definition of Done? Simple, everyone involved in the project needs to know and understand what Done means. Furthermore, Done should be really done, as in, 'there is nothing stopping us from earning value with this function, except maybe the go-ahead from the Product Owner. Consider the alternative:
Project Manager: Is this function done?
Developer: Yes
Project Manager: So we can ship it?
Developer: Well, No. It needs to be tested, and I need to write some documentation, but the code works, really. I tested it... (pause) ...on my machine. What's wrong with this exchange? To the developer and to the project manager, "done" means something rather different. To the developer in this case, done means: "I don't have to work on this piece of code any more (unless the tester tells me something is wrong)." The project leader is looking for a statement that the code is ready to ship.

At its most basic level, a definition of Done creates a sh…

Explaining Story Points to Management

During the February Scrum Breakfast in Zurich, the question arised, "How do I explain Story Points to Management?" A good question, and in all honesty, developers can be an even more critical audience than managers.

Traditional estimates attempt to answer the question, "how long will it take to develop X?" I could ask you a similar question, "How long does it take to get the nearest train station?

The answer, measured in time, depends on two things, the distance and the speed. Depending on whether I plan to go by car, by foot, by bicycle or (my personal favorite for short distances) trottinette, the answer can vary dramatically. So it is with software development. The productivity of a developer can vary dramatically, both as a function of innate ability and whether the task at hand plays to his strong points, so the time to produce a piece of software can vary dramatically. But the complexity of the problem doesn't depend on the person solving it, just …

Scaling Scrum: SAFe, DAD, or LeSS?

Participants in last week's Scrum MasterClass wanted to evaluate approaches to scaling Scrum and Agile for their large enterprise. So I set out to review the available frameworks. Which one is best for your situation?

Recently a number of approaches have started gaining attention, including the Scaled Agile Framework ("SAFe") by Dean Leffingwell, Disciplined Agile Development (DAD), by Scott Ambler, and Large Scale Scrum (LeSS), by Craig Larman and Bas Vodde. (Follow the links for white papers or overviews of each approach).

How to compare these approaches? My starting point is Scrum in the team. Scrum has proven very effective at helping teams perform, even though it does not directly address the issues surrounding larger organizations and teams. An approach to scaling Scrum should not be inconsistent with Scrum itself.

Scrum implements a small number of principles and constraints: Inspect and Adapt. An interdisciplinary Team solves the problem. Deliver something of va…