View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
| Criterion |  Decision Making PERT Estimation |  Agile Affinity Estimation |  Decision Making Force Field Analysis |  Decision Making Assumption Surfacing |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | On complex initiatives, a plain average tends to understate just how uncertain the outcome really is. It separates options, evaluation criteria, and open risks. The result is captured as a PERT Estimate, Expected Value, and Risk Notes. | When many tasks need to be classified quickly, it sorts them by perceived effort and similarity. It reduces the effort of fine-grained estimation for large volumes. | 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. | 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. |
Complexitydifferent | Medium | Medium | Low | Low |
Timedifferent | 15-45 min | 30-90 min | 45-90 min | 45-90 min |
Participantsdifferent | 1-8 | 3-12 | 3-12 | 2-8 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | PERT Estimate, Expected Value, Risk Notes | Affinity Size Map, Grouped Estimates, Unclear Items | Force Field Map, Change Levers, Risk Notes | Assumption List, Critical Assumptions, Learning Plan |
Tagsno overlap | EstimationUncertaintyRisk | EstimationBacklogRelative sizing | ChangeDecisionStrategy | AssumptionsRiskDecisionDiscovery |