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 NoEstimates |  Facilitation Alignment Mapping |  Facilitation Nominal Group Technique |  Facilitation Stakeholder Salience Model |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | 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. | 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. | When loud voices could dominate a round, Nominal Group Technique protects individual thinking time from group effects. It collects ideas separately first and only then enables shared weighting. | When stakeholders appear to matter very differently, the Stakeholder Salience Model rates their actual priority through power, legitimacy, and urgency. It turns individual contributions into a visible selection. The result is captured as a Salience diagram and a class-based strategy. |
Complexitysame | Medium | Medium | Medium | Medium |
Timedifferent | laufend | 1-2 h | 60-120 min | 60-90 min |
Participantsdifferent | 2-12 | 4-12 | 5-12 | 3-6 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Throughput Data, Flow Forecast, Slicing Rules | Alignment Map, Open Issues, Decision Questions | Ranked Ideas, Clarified Options, Group Priority | Salience Diagram, Strategy per Class |
Tagsno overlap | EstimationForecastingFlow | AlignmentStakeholdersStrategyFacilitation | FacilitationPrioritizationVotingInclusion | StakeholdersFacilitationAlignmentGovernance |