View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
| Criterion |  Agile Ideal Days |  Facilitation Stakeholder Mapping |  Agile Planning Poker |  Facilitation Alignment Mapping |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | 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. | When an initiative depends on many people, interests, and power dynamics, Stakeholder Mapping systematically orders the environment. It shows who influences, who is affected, and where relationship management or safeguarding matters first. | 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 several people work toward one goal but hold different mental maps, Alignment Mapping makes the discrepancies visible. It arranges goals, assumptions, and priorities so shared direction becomes verifiable. |
Complexitydifferent | Low | Low | Low | Medium |
Timedifferent | 15-60 min | 60–90 min | 2-5 min je Item | 1-2 h |
Participantsdifferent | 2-9 | 2-8 | 3-9 | 4-12 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Ideal Day Estimates, Assumption Notes, Capacity Caveats | Stakeholder Map, Engagement Plan, Risk Notes | Relative Estimates, Assumption Notes, Split Candidates | Alignment Map, Open Issues, Decision Questions |
Tagsno overlap | EstimationEffortAgile | StakeholdersAlignmentFacilitationChange | EstimationAgileRelative sizingTeam | AlignmentStakeholdersStrategyFacilitation |