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 |  Facilitation Consensus Workshop |  Facilitation Power Interest Grid |  Facilitation Expectation Mapping |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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. | 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. | 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 roles, interfaces, or projects fail because of differing expectations, Expectation Mapping surfaces these differences. It shows what each side takes for granted and where the pictures diverge. |
Complexitydifferent | Low | Medium | Low | Low |
Timedifferent | 2-5 min je Item | 1-3 h | 30-60 min | 45-90 min |
Participantsdifferent | 3-9 | 5-30 | 2-8 | 3-12 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Relative Estimates, Assumption Notes, Split Candidates | Consensus Clusters, Theme Titles, Priority Areas | Power Interest Grid, Strategy per Stakeholder | Expectation Map, Alignment Notes, Agreements |
Tagsno overlap | EstimationAgileRelative sizingTeam | FacilitationConsensusWorkshopAlignment | StakeholdersFacilitationAlignmentPlanning | AlignmentStakeholdersTeam |