In 30 seconds
- Points compare items to each other, not to the clock.
- They blend effort, complexity and uncertainty into one number.
- Useful for team forecasting; useless for comparing teams.
Try it
Why relative, not hours
People are bad at saying "this will take 14 hours" but good at saying "this is about twice as big as that". Story points use that strength. A team picks a familiar small item as a reference, calls it 2 or 3, and sizes everything else relative to it.
What goes into a point
- Effort: how much work there is.
- Complexity: how hard it is to get right.
- Uncertainty: how much is still unknown.
Teams usually estimate with Planning Poker on a Fibonacci-like scale.
How points become a forecast
Add up the points finished each sprint and you get velocity. Divide the remaining backlog by average velocity and you have a rough number of sprints left. It's a forecast, not a promise.
When to skip them
If items are already small and similar in size, counting items works almost as well and saves estimation time. Many Kanban teams do exactly that. See Story Points vs Hours.
Myth vs reality
The AI angle
Story points blend effort, complexity and uncertainty. AI cuts effort sharply but not uncertainty, so old reference stories lose meaning. Re-anchor the scale, or consider counting items instead.
FAQ
Why use Fibonacci numbers?
The widening gaps stop false precision on big, uncertain items.
Can we compare points across teams?
No. Each team's scale is different, so cross-team comparisons mislead.
Who should estimate?
The people who will do the work, together.