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 |  Agile Planning Poker |  Agile NoEstimates |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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. | When estimates within the team diverge too much, it puts differing expectations on a common test bench. It separates rough complexity from unspoken assumptions. | 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. |
Complexitydifferent | Medium | Medium | Low | Medium |
Timedifferent | 1-3 h | 30-90 min | 2-5 min je Item | laufend |
Participantsdifferent | 3-8 | 3-12 | 3-9 | 2-12 |
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 | Relative Estimates, Assumption Notes, Split Candidates | Throughput Data, Flow Forecast, Slicing Rules |
Tagsno overlap | FlowMeasurementConstraints | EstimationBacklogRelative sizing | EstimationAgileRelative sizingTeam | EstimationForecastingFlow |