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 Power Interest Grid |  Facilitation Consensus Workshop |
|---|---|---|---|
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 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. | When a group needs a solid decision without outvoting individual factions, a Consensus Workshop creates a negotiable common ground. It makes agreement, reservations, and open tensions discussable at the same time. |
Complexitydifferent | Medium | Low | Medium |
Timedifferent | laufend | 30-60 min | 1-3 h |
Participantsdifferent | 2-12 | 2-8 | 5-30 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Throughput Data, Flow Forecast, Slicing Rules | Power Interest Grid, Strategy per Stakeholder | Consensus Clusters, Theme Titles, Priority Areas |
Tagsno overlap | EstimationForecastingFlow | StakeholdersFacilitationAlignmentPlanning | FacilitationConsensusWorkshopAlignment |
Often compared together
Methods with strong topical overlap with the current selection, not yet in the comparison.
