Skip to content

Maximizing Efficiency: The Benefits of Keeping Story Point Sizes Small

    In Agile project management, one key aspect that often determines the success of a sprint is the estimation of story points. Story points measure the effort and complexity of each task or user story within a project. While the concept of story points is familiar to most Agile teams, the debate often arises regarding the optimal size for these points. This article delves into the advantages of maintaining an average story point size of around 3 and why it leads to increased efficiency and more straightforward implementation.

    What are Story Points?

    An Agile story point is a measure used in Agile project management methodologies to estimate the relative effort or complexity of completing a specific task or user story within a project. Story points are subjective and do not directly equate to time or hours. Instead, they represent a team’s collective judgment of the effort required to complete a task, considering complexity, uncertainty, and dependencies.

    Story points are typically assigned using a scale, often Fibonacci or modified Fibonacci sequence (1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, etc.), where each number represents a different level of effort or complexity. For example, a task assigned 1 story point would be relatively simple, while a task assigned 13 would be much more complex and challenging.

    Team members collaboratively estimate the story points for each task or user story, often using techniques like Planning Poker. These estimates help the team prioritize and plan their work for upcoming sprints, enabling them to forecast delivery timelines and allocate resources effectively.

    Story points allow Agile teams to focus on relative sizing rather than absolute time estimates, fostering a more flexible and adaptive approach to project planning and execution. They also facilitate more accurate forecasting and help teams identify potential bottlenecks or challenges early in development.

    Clarity in Implementation

    One of the primary advantages of having smaller story point sizes, around 3 on average, is the reduction of ambiguity during implementation. When tasks are broken down into smaller increments, the scope of work becomes more manageable and well-defined. This clarity ensures that team members have more clarity on what needs to be implemented.

    Enhanced Focus and Prioritization

    Smaller story point sizes enable teams to focus on delivering tangible value within shorter time frames. Teams can prioritize and address critical functionalities by breaking down features or user stories into smaller tasks. This incremental approach allows for more frequent releases and feedback loops, ensuring that the product evolves in alignment with stakeholder expectations.

    Mitigation of Risk and Uncertainty

    Large story point sizes often introduce higher levels of risk and uncertainty into a project. Complex tasks with higher point values may involve unforeseen challenges or dependencies, leading to delays and deviations from the original timeline. In contrast, smaller story point sizes minimize these risks by promoting incremental progress and early identification of obstacles.

    Efficient Resource Utilization

    From a resource management perspective, smaller story point sizes offer significant advantages. By breaking down features into smaller increments, teams can allocate resources more efficiently, matching team members’ skill sets to specific tasks. This optimized resource utilization minimizes bottlenecks and ensures a steady flow of progress throughout the sprint.

    Downsides to Larger Pointed Stories

    In contrast to smaller story point sizes, larger pointed stories tend to take longer to implement and are often more prone to delays. These larger tasks may encompass multiple subtasks and dependencies, increasing the complexity and the likelihood of encountering unforeseen obstacles. Moreover, the lack of clarity inherent in larger, pointed stories can significantly impact implementation time.

    The ambiguity surrounding larger, pointed stories can lead to misunderstandings among team members regarding the scope and requirements of the task. Without a clear understanding of what needs to be accomplished, team members may spend additional time clarifying requirements, resolving conflicting interpretations, and addressing unexpected challenges that arise during implementation.

    Furthermore, with the typical 2-week sprint cycle, larger pointed stories often cannot be completed within a single sprint. Instead, they may span multiple sprints, causing a delay in delivering valuable features to stakeholders. This extended duration not only prolongs the time to market but also increases the risk of changes in requirements or priorities, further complicating the implementation process.

    In contrast, breaking down larger, pointed stories into smaller, more manageable tasks provides greater clarity and granularity. Each subtask can be clearly defined, prioritized, and assigned to individual team members, facilitating smoother implementation and reducing the likelihood of misunderstandings or misinterpretations.

    By decomposing larger pointed stories into smaller sized stories with more precise objectives, teams can streamline their workflows, improve communication and collaboration, and ultimately, deliver value more efficiently and effectively.


    In conclusion, maintaining an average story point size of around 3 provides numerous benefits for Agile teams. From enhancing clarity in implementation to mitigating risks and improving resource utilization, smaller story point sizes promote efficiency and effectiveness in project delivery. By embracing this approach, teams can streamline their workflows, accelerate time-to-market, and consistently deliver value to stakeholders.

    Ready to work on something special together?

    Schedule a complimentary discovery call