Choosing the best session type for your team
- Derya Özdemir
We have prepared a comprehensive table showcasing the differences between the four session types (Interactive, Asynchronous, Relative, and Bucket Sizing) in Agile Poker for Jira Cloud.
This summary will help you familiarize yourself with the app and its various features. By understanding these differences, you can choose the session type that best suits your needs and enhances your estimation process. Take a look at the table below for a brief overview:
 | Interactive Session | Asynchronous Session | Relative Session | Bucket Sizing Session |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Estimation Method | Planning Poker® | Planning Poker® | Magic Estimation Game | Swimlane Sizing card game-inspired |
Description | Real-time estimation session with high team interaction. | Similar to Interactive session, but lets members estimate at their convenience. | Focuses on estimating each task relative to one another. | Team members categorize items into predefined buckets. |
Issue Estimation | Participants estimate issues individually and then discuss together. | Participants estimate issues individually at their own convenience. | Participants compare issues to each other in real-time. | Participants place issues into labeled buckets in real-time. |
Session Type | Interactive | Self-paced | Interactive | Interactive |
User Experience | Collaborative interface with real-time updates. | Individual interface with asynchronous updates. | Trello-like interface with drag-and-drop. | Trello-like interface with drag-and-drop. |
Observer Role |
|
|
|
|
Multi-Field Estimation | ||||
Session Speed | Depends on team discussion and collaboration. | Flexible based on individual availability. | Fast and useful for quick rough estimations. | Fastest session type. |
If you’re still unsure about which session best suits your team's needs, keep reading as we delve into the unique aspects of each session*.
Interactive Session
Why use this method
It works especially well for experienced Agile teams. Team members already understand how to use story points, so you’re not trying to teach them the game and the story points concept at the same time. One advantage of Interactive session is that every team member gives their own estimates, which encourages group discussion and collaboration. No one can monopolize the conversation because the process ensures that even more introverted team members feel empowered to speak up.Â
Ultimately, having the opportunity to voice concerns and ask questions during the process helps all team members feel more committed to the project plan, once created.
Why skip this method
Although Interactive session can make estimation fun and collaborative, the game itself isn’t entirely intuitive. Newer team members can take a lot of time just learning to play, never mind coming up with accurate estimates. It also isn’t completely relative: Itemsare estimated one by one, and each of them should be compared to a baseline.Â
But session participants often try to figure out how many times bigger the given item is than the baseline. Here is where the estimation process can get derailed. We end up with estimations in fixed time intervals when the real idea of relative estimation is to compare items against each other.Â
Asynchronous Session
Why use this method
Asynchronous estimation ensures that all team members (wherever located) have the opportunity to voice their concerns, and all estimates receive equal consideration. Team members estimate on their own, at their own pace.
Some teams use a hybrid approach, using Asynchronous to get familiar with the stories, cast their initial estimates, and address concerns through comments. Then they meet in real-time for an Interactive session.
Why skip this method
Asynchronous lacks some of the benefits of Interactive session, like the opportunity for real-time collaboration and conversation.
One potential drawback to Asynchronous is that if you need to add a new task or break a story into two, the moderator will need to create a whole new session. In Interactive session, the leader can add the task then and there, and the team will estimate it right away.
Relative Session
Why use this method
One criticism of Interactive session is that it’s not relative, so estimates for individual tasks or stories might not make sense when you look at the project as a whole. Relative estimation, by definition, involves estimating effort in relation to other tasks. It's also visual and interactive, which can make this solution easier for remote or distributed teams.
It also works great for teams that have a low to moderate experience using Story Points for estimation. Team members don’t need to come up with estimation values: just compare one issue to another. Simple! Relative estimation generally produces accurate results in less time. A moderator can easily move tasks or issues into a column for estimation, get estimates from the team, then move on to the next task — all in one view! If you’re sick of awkward silences stretching out your meeting or Zoom call, give this visual method a try!
Why skip this method
If you’re trying to get the estimation process done faster, a Relative session won’t necessarily get you there. You’ll spend less time on logistics and set-up (explaining the game), but you’ll still need to discuss and deliberate if people can’t agree. If you’re familiar with Interactive session and that process usually moves quickly for you, switching might not be worthwhile.
Bucket Sizing Session
Why use this method
Bucket Sizing can move faster than Interactive session because there aren’t as many rules to explain. Sorting is easy, after all! And you still get accurate and reliable results.
Estimating tasks with Bucket Sizing can be a lot of fun because of the many ways to illustrate size (like using coffee cups, pictures of small and large dogs, etc.).Â
Why skip this method
If you have less experienced team members who might benefit from a discussion of how other members choose where to place each task, Interactive or Relative session might be a better option.Â