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 Stakeholder Mapping |  Facilitation Nominal Group Technique |  Facilitation Alignment Mapping |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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 an initiative depends on many people, interests, and power dynamics, Stakeholder Mapping systematically orders the environment. It shows who influences, who is affected, and where relationship management or safeguarding matters first. | 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 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. |
Complexitydifferent | Medium | Low | Medium | Medium |
Timedifferent | laufend | 60–90 min | 60-120 min | 1-2 h |
Participantsdifferent | 2-12 | 2-8 | 5-12 | 4-12 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Throughput Data, Flow Forecast, Slicing Rules | Stakeholder Map, Engagement Plan, Risk Notes | Ranked Ideas, Clarified Options, Group Priority | Alignment Map, Open Issues, Decision Questions |
Tagsno overlap | EstimationForecastingFlow | StakeholdersAlignmentFacilitationChange | FacilitationPrioritizationVotingInclusion | AlignmentStakeholdersStrategyFacilitation |