methodatlas
Compare

View methods side by side.

Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.

Criterion
Paper illustration of shared options, independently placed voting dots, and a highlighted shortlist.
Facilitation
Dot Voting
Paper illustration for NoEstimates.
Agile
NoEstimates
Paper illustration for Monte Carlo Forecasting.
Delivery
Monte Carlo Forecasting
Purposedifferent
When a workshop has produced too many options and the group needs to condense quickly, dot voting makes preferences visible in a short time. It bundles individual votes into a solid signal for the next selection.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.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.
Complexitydifferent
LowMediumHigh
Timedifferent
5-15 minlaufend30-90 min Setup, danach laufend
Participantsdifferent
3-202-121-8
Formatdifferent
WorkshopWorkshop + asyncWorkshop + async
Outputdifferent
Ranked list, Consensus signal, ShortlistThroughput Data, Flow Forecast, Slicing RulesForecast Percentiles, Throughput Dataset, Risk Communication
Tagsno overlap
FacilitationVotingConsensusPrioritization
EstimationForecastingFlow
ForecastingFlowDelivery
Add more methods

Often compared together

Methods with strong topical overlap with the current selection, not yet in the comparison.

Independent contributions form an ordered group priority list.
Facilitation
Nominal Group Technique
Paper illustration of the Consensus Workshop working structure.
Facilitation
Consensus Workshop
Paper illustration of Cost of Delay with its method-specific working model.
Delivery
Cost of Delay