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 T-Shirt Sizing |  Agile NoEstimates |  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 effort only needs to be classified roughly, it makes comparability more important than false precision. It helps sort work quickly into manageable sizes. | 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 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 | Low | Medium | Low |
Timedifferent | 1-3 h | 15-45 min | laufend | 2-5 min je Item |
Participantsdifferent | 3-8 | 2-12 | 2-12 | 3-9 |
Formatsame | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Bottleneck Map, Flow Metrics, Improvement Options, Follow-up Measures | Size Buckets, Rough Backlog Map, Split Candidates | Throughput Data, Flow Forecast, Slicing Rules | Relative Estimates, Assumption Notes, Split Candidates |
Tagsno overlap | FlowMeasurementConstraints | EstimationAgileRoadmap | EstimationForecastingFlow | EstimationAgileRelative sizingTeam |