Ep10 Pass The Cards

Paul Goddard:

Hello Geoff?

Geoff Watts:

Hi Paul.

Paul Goddard:

How are you, buddy?

Geoff Watts:

I’m doing all right. Spring’s in the air — it’s a nice time of year.

Paul Goddard:

Welcome listeners, and welcome back to another episode of the Agile Skills Library, where Geoff and I talk through techniques we’ve used over the years — and then give them away for you to try, play with, and adapt.

Today we’re talking about a technique known as Pass the Cards, sometimes also called 3–5, and we’ll be exploring it specifically in the context of prioritisation.

Before we get into the mechanics, it’s worth giving credit where it’s due. I first came across this technique through Jean Tabaka, in Collaboration Explained. I’ve also seen similar versions attributed to Thiagi, so credit to both for the foundations of this exercise.

Geoff, before we dive into how it works, why do you use this technique?

Why Use Pass the Cards?

Geoff Watts:

I usually position this as a collaborative prioritisation technique.

It works really well when:

• you’re teaching Product Owners,
• coaching a Product Owner who wants to engage stakeholders,
• or working with a team that needs to make a collective decision about multiple options.

Instead of one person making a “god-like” decision about priorities, this technique:

• engages multiple voices,
• surfaces different perspectives,
• and does it quickly, interactively, and with a bit of energy.

It gets people off their chairs, moving, talking — and it’s actually fun.

Paul Goddard:

And it scales surprisingly well. We’ve used it with small groups and very large rooms. If you need broad buy-in or shared ownership of a decision, this is a great way to get it.

So Geoff, talk us through how it works.

How the Technique Works

Geoff Watts:

Imagine you’ve got a group of stakeholders in the room — let’s say 20 people.

As the facilitator or Product Owner, you create an index card for each backlog item:

• user stories,
• features,
• initiatives — whatever you’re prioritising.

Each participant gets:

• one card,
• and a pen.

Everyone pairs up with someone else in the room. It doesn’t matter who — just make eye contact and move.

Each pair now has two cards between them. Their task is simple:

Decide which of these two items is more important — and by how much.

We use an odd-numbered scale (I tend to use 9 points). Together, the pair must split those points across the two cards to represent their relative value.

Paul Goddard:

That odd number is important — you can’t split it evenly. You’re forced to make a judgement call.

Scoring and Swapping

Geoff Watts:

Let’s say we decide your card is roughly twice as valuable as mine. We might split the points 6 and 3.

• You write 6 on the back of your card.
• I write 3 on the back of mine.

And then — this is crucial — we swap cards.

That way:

• no one keeps advocating for the same item,
• and people don’t get attached to “their” card.

That’s the end of round one.

Paul Goddard:

One facilitation tip here: always write scores on the back of the card. If people see previous scores on the front, it biases the next conversation.

Multiple Rounds

Geoff Watts:

Once everyone finishes the round, they pair up with someone new and repeat the process.

Each round:

• adds another score to the back of each card,
• with a different partner,
• and a different comparison.

I typically run seven rounds with a nine-point scale.

At the end:

• each card has multiple scores on the back,
• those scores are totalled,
• and the cards are laid out in order from lowest to highest total.

Then comes the reveal — we flip the cards over and see the collective priority order.

Facilitation Tips & Edge Cases

Paul Goddard:

A few things to watch for as a facilitator:

• People will sometimes say “I’ve seen this card before” — that’s okay. As long as they’re talking to a different person, the conversation will still be different.
• Everyone must stay in sync. Don’t let people race ahead and add extra scores.
• In large groups, you’ll need to be quite firm with the rules.

Geoff Watts:

You’ll also sometimes get ties. When two cards have the same total, the Product Owner (or arbiter) makes the final call.

That decision is usually quick — and informed by far more input than a traditional prioritisation meeting.

What People Learn From This Exercise

Paul Goddard:

If you’re running this as a learning exercise, what outcomes are you hoping for?

Geoff Watts:

A few key things:

• People quickly realise they’re debating “priority” without agreeing on what success actually means.
• This leads naturally into conversations about vision, goals, and value criteria.
• Dominant personalities are contained. They can only influence the person in front of them — not the whole room.
• It highlights how subjective prioritisation can be unless criteria are made explicit.
• It reinforces that prioritisation is a shared decision, not just a loud one.

Paul Goddard:

Exactly. It surfaces assumptions, exposes biases, and creates a far more balanced conversation — especially when you’ve got lots of items and limited time.

Closing

Paul Goddard:

We’ll include some downloadable material so you can try this in a safe, low-risk way — just as Geoff suggested — plus references back to Jean Tabaka’s original work.

Give it a try, let us know how it goes, and tell us what you discover.

Geoff Watts:

Nice one.

Paul Goddard:

Thanks everyone. See you next time on the Agile Skills Library.

Geoff Watts:

Cheers all.

‍