| Course | MT247 Agile and Scrum Methodologies |
|---|---|
| Unit | Unit 5 |
| Paper type | Estimation exercise |
| Length | About 910 words, 6 pages double-spaced |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Purdue University Global |
| Program | BS in Business Administration |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for MT247 Unit 5
Three to Thirteen and Back to Eight: A Unit 5 Estimation Exercise in Planning Poker for a Resident App
[Student Name]
Purdue University Global
MT247: Agile and Scrum Methodologies
Unit 5 Estimation Exercise
[Instructor Name]
[Date]
Larkspur Residential, its app team, the items and every estimate are composite and illustrative; the sources cited are real.
Method
The team estimates in story points, a relative measure of size that blends effort, complexity and uncertainty. Points are not part of Scrum; they are a planning technique many Scrum teams use, described at length by Cohn (2005). The scale is 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13 and 20, with gaps that widen as items grow, because larger items are less certain and a fine distinction between, say, 11 and 12 would be false precision.
Every estimate is relative to a reference item: a resident canceling an open repair request, which the team built two Sprints ago and agreed was a 2. Each new item is compared with it: is this about the same, a bit more, or a lot more?
The session uses planning poker. Each Developer chooses a card privately, all reveal at once, and the highest and lowest explain their reasoning. The team discusses and votes again until the cards converge. Grenning (2002) introduced the technique to stop one confident voice from anchoring everyone else, and Rubin (2012) describes the discussion after each reveal as the part of the session that produces understanding, with the number as a by-product.
The Session Record
Nine items were estimated. Each line gives the first round of cards, what the discussion turned on and the final estimate.
Emergency routing: 5, 8, 8, 8, 13; whether the on-call schedule already exists in the system; it does; final 8
Technician arrival window: 5, 5, 5, 3, 5; converged; final 5
Photo fix for older phones: 2, 2, 2, 2, 3; converged; final 2
Photo attachments on new requests: 3, 5, 5, 8, 13; the high card raised image compression for slow connections, which nobody else had considered; final 8
Permission-to-enter windows: 2, 3, 5, 5, 8; the high card assumed residents could edit windows later; the Product Owner confirmed the first version only records a window; final 3
Spanish-language screens: 5, 8, 13, 13, 20; too large to estimate as one item; split into translated request screens and translated notifications; final 8 and 5
Technician request closing: 3, 5, 5, 5, 5; converged; final 5
Status notifications: 3, 3, 5, 3, 3; the 5 assumed push and text; text only for now; final 3
Rent receipt download: 1, 2, 2, 2, 2; converged after one comment; final 2
Four of nine items converged in the first round. The estimates total 49 points.
What the Spreads Revealed
The widest spreads were not arguments about effort. They were discoveries. The photo attachment spread, 3 to 13, closed when one Developer pointed out that full-size photos from new phones would upload slowly on the cellular connections many residents use, so the item needed image compression. Nobody had written that into the item. The permission-to-enter spread closed when the Product Owner answered a scope question. In both cases the estimate changed because the team learned something about the work.
The card that disagrees is usually the one that has noticed something.
Who Was in the Room
All five Developers voted, including the tester, because testing effort is part of every item's size. The Product Owner attended to answer scope questions but did not vote, since she does not build the work. The development manager was invited to observe and did not attend. Keeping the vote among the people doing the work matters: an estimate offered by someone who will not build the item is a hope, not an estimate, and Developers tend to defer to a manager's number if one is spoken first.
Why Not Average the Cards
Averaging the first round of photo attachment cards would give about 7, a number nobody chose and that reflects neither the simple version nor the compressed one. Averaging hides the disagreement that the discussion exists to resolve. The team votes again until the cards converge, and if they do not after three rounds, the item is split or sent back for clarification.
Why Points Are Not Hours
The development manager's question, how many hours a point is worth, has no stable answer. A point measures size relative to the reference item. How many hours a Developer spends on a 5-point item depends on who does it, what else is happening and what they learn along the way. Converting points to hours would turn a relative estimate into a commitment of time, and Developers would start padding their cards. Cohn (2005) warns that converting points to hours undoes the main benefit of relative estimation.
Forecast
The team's last four velocities were 19, 24, 17 and 22 points, an average of 20.5. At 24 points a Sprint, 49 points would take a little over two Sprints; at 17, nearly three. The forecast given to the Product Owner is two to three Sprints, not a date. The range is honest about the variation in the team's recent work and about the likelihood that new items will enter the backlog in the meantime.
Velocity also has limits. It describes this team's own pace and cannot be compared with another team's, because each team's points are relative to its own reference item.
References
Cohn, M. (2005). Agile estimating and planning. Prentice Hall.
Grenning, J. (2002). Planning poker or how to avoid analysis paralysis while release planning [White paper]. Renaissance Software Consulting.
Rubin, K. S. (2012). Essential Scrum: A practical guide to the most popular agile process. Addison-Wesley.
What the MT247 Unit 5 assignment asks for
The fifth unit asks students to estimate a set of backlog items using a relative method, usually story points with planning poker, and turn the estimates into a forecast. Explain the scale and the reference item every estimate is compared with. Record each item's first round of cards, what the discussion turned on and the final estimate, since the reasoning matters more than the numbers. Say who voted and why. A forecast should use the team's past velocities and be given as a range of Sprints rather than a date. Many sections also ask why points should not be converted to hours. Five pages in APA 7, with a session table, is typical.
How this MT247 Unit 5 example is built
The exercise opens with the scale, the reference item and how planning poker works, citing Cohn, Grenning and Rubin. The session record lists nine items with first-round cards, the point each discussion turned on and the final estimate, under a margin note on the value of disagreement. A section shows that the widest spreads were discoveries about the work, with the highlighted line on the card that notices something. Short sections explain who voted, why cards are not averaged and why points do not convert to hours. The forecast divides 49 points by the fastest and slowest recent velocities to give two to three Sprints, and notes that velocity cannot compare teams, under a closing note.
Reading the MT247 Unit 5 grading rubric
Estimation exercises earn credit for a clear method, an honest record of the session, use of disagreement and a sound forecast. A reference item and a stated scale show the estimates are relative. Graders reward session records that capture what each discussion revealed, especially when an estimate changed because the team learned something about the work. Explaining why cards are not averaged and why points are not hours shows understanding of the method's purpose. A forecast given as a range from past velocities scores better than a single date. Noting the limits of velocity, such as comparisons between teams, earns credit for judgment. A short note on who voted, and why managers who will not build the work do not, often draws positive comment.
MT247 Unit 5 help: mistakes that cost points
The most common mistake is reporting final estimates without the first-round spread or the discussion, which hides the method. Another is averaging the cards, producing numbers nobody chose. Some students convert points to hours or days to satisfy a manager. Others give a forecast as a fixed date or use one Sprint's velocity. Check that the forecast arithmetic uses the totals you report, and that any item split during the session appears as two estimates in the total. Include the first-round cards even when they look embarrassing; the spread is the evidence. Share the items your team will estimate, and a writer can set up the reference item, record a session and turn the result into a range forecast.
Get an MT247 Unit 5 example written to your instructions
For estimates a team would own, the sample needs the backlog items or case your Unit 5 prompt provides, any velocity history and the rubric. It arrives inside 24-48h and costs nothing the first time, with a reference item fixed, every spread discussed and the forecast given as a range of Sprints. The paper above is an original model document written by our desk, not a submitted student paper and not an official Purdue University Global document.
More MT247 papers and BS in Business Administration samples
- MT247 Unit 1: Discussion Board Post
- MT247 Unit 2: Framework Explanation
- MT247 Unit 3: Role Analysis
- MT247 Unit 4: Backlog Ordering Exercise
- MT247 Unit 6: Seminar Reflection
- MT247 Unit 7: Sprint Planning Artifact
- MT247 Unit 8: Impediment Analysis
- MT247 Unit 9: Retrospective Design
- MT247 Unit 10: Adoption Assessment
- MT246 Unit 5: Project Schedule
- MT245 Unit 5: Scope Statement
- MT243 Unit 5: Sponsorship Proposal
- MT242 Unit 5: Staffing and Volunteer Plan
MT247 Unit 5 questions, answered
Are story points part of Scrum?
No. The 2020 Scrum Guide says the Developers who will do the work are responsible for sizing, but it prescribes no technique. Story points and planning poker are widely used complements. The example presents them that way in its method note, which keeps the paper accurate while still using the practice most sections expect to see in this unit.
Why not just average the cards?
Because the spread carries information an average destroys. A 3 and a 13 on the same item usually mean two Developers picture different work, one of them seeing something the other missed. The example discusses each wide spread until a fact closes it, such as image compression, and writes that fact beside the estimate so the assumption stays visible.
Can velocity be used to compare two teams?
Not meaningfully. Each team's points are anchored to its own reference items, so one team's eight has no fixed relation to another's. Velocity helps a single team forecast its own work, as the example does with a range of Sprints. Used to rank teams or measure productivity, it tends to inflate, which the course usually takes up around this point in the term.
Where can I find a free MT247 Unit 5 sample paper?
This page carries the complete MT247 Unit 5 estimation exercise. It records a planning poker session on nine resident app items, explains how wide spreads closed and forecasts 49 points as two to three Sprints.
Why did the Developers in the MT247 Unit 5 sample refuse to convert points to hours?
Points measure size relative to a reference item. Hours depend on who does the work and what happens during it, so converting them would turn an estimate into a time commitment and encourage padding.