View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
| Criterion |  UX Research Contextual Inquiry |  Agile Planning Poker |  Agile Affinity Estimation |  Agile Ideal Days |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | When work processes are known only from accounts and the real context stays hidden, Contextual Inquiry makes behavior at the workplace visible. Observation and follow-up questions together show how people actually work, get interrupted, and improvise. | 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 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 effort needs to be thought of as real working time, it offers a simple common denominator for comparison. It sorts work by value, risk, and delivery ability. The result is captured as Ideal Day Estimates, Assumption Notes, and Capacity Caveats. |
Complexitydifferent | Medium | Low | Medium | Low |
Timedifferent | 1-3 Wochen | 2-5 min je Item | 30-90 min | 15-60 min |
Participantsdifferent | 4-12 Beobachtungen | 3-9 | 3-12 | 2-9 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Field Notes, Workflow Insights, Pain Points | Relative Estimates, Assumption Notes, Split Candidates | Affinity Size Map, Grouped Estimates, Unclear Items | Ideal Day Estimates, Assumption Notes, Capacity Caveats |
Tagsno overlap | UX researchObservationContext | EstimationAgileRelative sizingTeam | EstimationBacklogRelative sizing | EstimationEffortAgile |