View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
| Criterion |  Engineering Kanban |  Delivery Monte Carlo Forecasting |  Agile Affinity Estimation |  Agile Planning Poker |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | When work sits in too many parallel streams, throughput suffers and no one sees the bottlenecks. Kanban makes the flow of work visible and limits overload so a system becomes calmer and more predictable. | 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. | 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 estimates within the team diverge too much, it puts differing expectations on a common test bench. It separates rough complexity from unspoken assumptions. |
Complexitydifferent | Medium | High | Medium | Low |
Timedifferent | Ongoing | 30-90 min Setup, danach laufend | 30-90 min | 2-5 min je Item |
Participantsdifferent | 2-12 | 1-8 | 3-12 | 3-9 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Kanban board, WIP policies, Flow metrics | Forecast Percentiles, Throughput Dataset, Risk Communication | Affinity Size Map, Grouped Estimates, Unclear Items | Relative Estimates, Assumption Notes, Split Candidates |
Tagsno overlap | FlowVisual managementDelivery | ForecastingFlowDelivery | EstimationBacklogRelative sizing | EstimationAgileRelative sizingTeam |