View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
| Criterion |  Operations A3 Problem Solving |  Agile NoEstimates |  Facilitation Alignment Mapping |  Facilitation Power Interest Grid |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | For a complex deviation with several people involved, the method bundles problem, analysis, and decision onto one page. It creates a shared working space where causes, countermeasures, and follow-up fit together. | When estimating slows a team down more than it helps, it shifts the focus to flow, small slices, and real lead time. It sorts work by value, risk, and delivery ability. The result is captured as Throughput Data, Flow Forecast, and Slicing Rules. | When several people work toward one goal but hold different mental maps, Alignment Mapping makes the discrepancies visible. It arranges goals, assumptions, and priorities so shared direction becomes verifiable. | When many stakeholders compete for attention at once, the Power Interest Grid sorts them by influence and stake. It turns individual contributions into a visible selection. The result is captured as a Power Interest Grid and a stakeholder-specific strategy. |
Complexitydifferent | Medium | Medium | Medium | Low |
Timedifferent | 45-90 min | laufend | 1-2 h | 30-60 min |
Participantsdifferent | 2-5 | 2-12 | 4-12 | 2-8 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | A3 Report, Action Plan, Root Cause Analysis | Throughput Data, Flow Forecast, Slicing Rules | Alignment Map, Open Issues, Decision Questions | Power Interest Grid, Strategy per Stakeholder |
Tagsno overlap | LeanProblem solvingCoachingOperations | EstimationForecastingFlow | AlignmentStakeholdersStrategyFacilitation | StakeholdersFacilitationAlignmentPlanning |