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 |  Decision Making Assumption Surfacing |  Facilitation Alignment Mapping |  Facilitation Power Interest Grid |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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. | Plans often contain assumptions that were never openly stated and remain dangerous precisely because of that. Assumption Surfacing makes these silent premises visible and prioritizes which of them carry the initiative or could sink it. | 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 many stakeholders compete for attention at once, the Power Interest Grid sorts them by influence and stake. It turns individual contributions into a visible selection. The result is captured as a Power Interest Grid and a stakeholder-specific strategy. |
Complexitydifferent | Medium | Low | Medium | Low |
Timedifferent | laufend | 45-90 min | 1-2 h | 30-60 min |
Participantsdifferent | 2-12 | 2-8 | 4-12 | 2-8 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Throughput Data, Flow Forecast, Slicing Rules | Assumption List, Critical Assumptions, Learning Plan | Alignment Map, Open Issues, Decision Questions | Power Interest Grid, Strategy per Stakeholder |
Tagsno overlap | EstimationForecastingFlow | AssumptionsRiskDecisionDiscovery | AlignmentStakeholdersStrategyFacilitation | StakeholdersFacilitationAlignmentPlanning |