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 Three-Point Estimation.
Decision Making
Three-Point Estimation
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.A single estimate for effort, time, or risk often looks too smooth for the real uncertainty behind it. It separates options, evaluation criteria, and open risks. The result is captured as a Three-Point Estimate, Risk Range, and Assumption Notes.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
LowMediumMediumHigh
Timedifferent
5-15 min10-30 min je Itemlaufend30-90 min Setup, danach laufend
Participantsdifferent
3-201-82-121-8
Formatdifferent
WorkshopWorkshop + asyncWorkshop + asyncWorkshop + async
Outputdifferent
Ranked list, Consensus signal, ShortlistThree-Point Estimate, Risk Range, Assumption NotesThroughput Data, Flow Forecast, Slicing RulesForecast Percentiles, Throughput Dataset, Risk Communication
Tagsno overlap
FacilitationVotingConsensusPrioritization
EstimationUncertaintyForecasting
EstimationForecastingFlow
ForecastingFlowDelivery
Add more methods