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 After-Action Review |  Agile NoEstimates |  Decision Making PERT Estimation |  Operations Theory of Constraints |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | After missions or project phases with unclear outcomes, the method makes visible what actually happened and what can be learned from it. It separates course, effect, and causes so experience turns into solid improvement. | 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. | On complex initiatives, a plain average tends to understate just how uncertain the outcome really is. It separates options, evaluation criteria, and open risks. The result is captured as a PERT Estimate, Expected Value, and Risk Notes. | For a system that does not get faster despite effort, the method directs attention to the bottleneck. It concentrates improvement on the point that actually limits throughput. |
Complexitydifferent | Low | Medium | Medium | High |
Timedifferent | 20-45 min | laufend | 15-45 min | 2-4 h Analyse, laufend |
Participantsdifferent | 3-12 | 2-12 | 1-8 | 3-12 |
Formatsame | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Lessons learned, Action items, Event summary | Throughput Data, Flow Forecast, Slicing Rules | PERT Estimate, Expected Value, Risk Notes | Constraint Map, Improvement Plan, Flow Metrics |
Tagsno overlap | LearningOperationsImprovement | EstimationForecastingFlow | EstimationUncertaintyRisk | OperationsConstraintsFlowImprovement |