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 Planning Poker |  Operations 5 Whys |  Agile Affinity Estimation |  Operations A3 Problem Solving |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | When estimates within the team diverge too much, it puts differing expectations on a common test bench. It separates rough complexity from unspoken assumptions. | For a single, hard-to-explain deviation, the method exposes the causal chain behind the visible symptom. It keeps the cause open until a controllable condition emerges instead of a mere description. | 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. | For a complex deviation with several people involved, the method bundles problem, analysis, and decision onto one page. It creates a shared working space where causes, countermeasures, and follow-up fit together. |
Complexitydifferent | Low | Low | Medium | Medium |
Timedifferent | 2-5 min je Item | 15-30 min | 30-90 min | 45-90 min |
Participantsdifferent | 3-9 | 2-6 | 3-12 | 2-5 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Relative Estimates, Assumption Notes, Split Candidates | Root cause notes, Countermeasures | Affinity Size Map, Grouped Estimates, Unclear Items | A3 Report, Action Plan, Root Cause Analysis |
Tagsno overlap | EstimationAgileRelative sizingTeam | Root causeIncidentLeanProblem solving | EstimationBacklogRelative sizing | LeanProblem solvingCoachingOperations |