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 Force Field Analysis |  Delivery Monte Carlo Forecasting |  Product Strategy DIBB |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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. | In change initiatives, supporting and restraining forces sit at the table at the same time. Force Field Analysis makes these tensions explicit and shows where change can be pushed forward by strengthening or relieving. | 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. | DIBB helps clarify target groups, value, goals, and priorities by making the logic behind a decision explicit. It captures results as a DIBB document, belief list, bet list, and learning report. |
Complexitydifferent | Medium | Low | High | Low |
Timedifferent | laufend | 45-90 min | 30-90 min Setup, danach laufend | 1-2 h |
Participantsdifferent | 2-12 | 3-12 | 1-8 | 2-8 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop + async | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Throughput Data, Flow Forecast, Slicing Rules | Force Field Map, Change Levers, Risk Notes | Forecast Percentiles, Throughput Dataset, Risk Communication | DIBB document, Belief list, Bet list, Learning report |
Tagsno overlap | EstimationForecastingFlow | ChangeDecisionStrategy | ForecastingFlowDelivery | StrategyDecisionAssumptionsHypothesis |