View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
| Criterion |  Delivery Communication Plan |  Agile NoEstimates |  Delivery Shape Up |  Facilitation Power Interest Grid |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | When many people need to be informed in parallel and messages would otherwise arrive unevenly or too late, a Communication Plan orders communication reliably. Channels, audiences, and cadences interlock so important information doesn't get lost. | 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. | Shape Up helps clarify scope, sequence, and delivery flow. It makes work boundaries and decisions explicit and captures results as pitches, bet-table decisions, and hill charts. | 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 | Low | Medium | Medium | Low |
Timedifferent | 45-90 min | laufend | 6 Wochen Cycle + 2 Wochen Cool-Down | 30-60 min |
Participantsdifferent | 2-6 | 2-12 | 2-4 pro Pitch | 2-8 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Communication Plan, Channel Matrix, Message Cadence | Throughput Data, Flow Forecast, Slicing Rules | Pitches, Bet-table decisions, Hill charts, Cooldown outcomes | Power Interest Grid, Strategy per Stakeholder |
Tagsno overlap | CommunicationStakeholdersDeliveryPlanning | EstimationForecastingFlow | PlanningDeliveryAutonomy | StakeholdersFacilitationAlignmentPlanning |