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 |  Delivery Shape Up |  Facilitation Alignment Mapping |  Delivery Monte Carlo Forecasting |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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. | Shape Up helps clarify scope, sequence, and delivery flow. It makes work boundaries and decisions explicit and captures results as pitches, bet-table decisions, and hill charts. | 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. | 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. |
Complexitydifferent | Medium | Medium | Medium | High |
Timedifferent | laufend | 6 Wochen Cycle + 2 Wochen Cool-Down | 1-2 h | 30-90 min Setup, danach laufend |
Participantsdifferent | 2-12 | 2-4 pro Pitch | 4-12 | 1-8 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Throughput Data, Flow Forecast, Slicing Rules | Pitches, Bet-table decisions, Hill charts, Cooldown outcomes | Alignment Map, Open Issues, Decision Questions | Forecast Percentiles, Throughput Dataset, Risk Communication |
Tagsno overlap | EstimationForecastingFlow | PlanningDeliveryAutonomy | AlignmentStakeholdersStrategyFacilitation | ForecastingFlowDelivery |