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 Bottleneck Analysis |  Agile Affinity Estimation |  Delivery Monte Carlo Forecasting |  Agile Planning Poker |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | For a flow that backs up at one point, the method looks for the capacity limit with the greatest leverage. It explains why extra effort elsewhere barely improves throughput. | When many tasks need to be classified quickly, it sorts them by perceived effort and similarity. It reduces the effort of fine-grained estimation for large volumes. | Helps clarify scope, sequence, and delivery flow in concrete terms. It makes work, boundaries, and order steerable. The result is captured as Forecast Percentiles, Throughput Dataset, and Risk Communication. | When estimates within the team diverge too much, it puts differing expectations on a common test bench. It separates rough complexity from unspoken assumptions. |
Complexitydifferent | Medium | Medium | High | Low |
Timedifferent | 1-3 h | 30-90 min | 30-90 min Setup, danach laufend | 2-5 min je Item |
Participantsdifferent | 3-8 | 3-12 | 1-8 | 3-9 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop + async | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Bottleneck Map, Flow Metrics, Improvement Options, Follow-up Measures | Affinity Size Map, Grouped Estimates, Unclear Items | Forecast Percentiles, Throughput Dataset, Risk Communication | Relative Estimates, Assumption Notes, Split Candidates |
Tagsno overlap | FlowMeasurementConstraints | EstimationBacklogRelative sizing | ForecastingFlowDelivery | EstimationAgileRelative sizingTeam |