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 |  Systems Thinking Future Reality Tree |  Facilitation Dot Estimation |  Systems Thinking Evaporating Cloud |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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. | A Future Reality Tree shows how desired actions are meant to lead to a better system state. The method checks whether a path of change holds together logically before time flows into implementation. | When size or effort can only be estimated roughly, Dot Estimation condenses the group's experience into a quick range. It turns individual contributions into a visible selection. The result is captured as an Effort Heatmap, Risk Signals, and Discussion Targets. | The method makes visible why two seemingly incompatible demands arise and which assumption must be tested to resolve the conflict. |
Complexitydifferent | Low | High | Low | Medium |
Timedifferent | 2-5 min je Item | 2-4 h | 5-20 min | 60-120 min |
Participantsdifferent | 3-9 | 3-8 | 3-20 | 2-8 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Relative Estimates, Assumption Notes, Split Candidates | Future Reality Tree, Negative Branches, Assumption List, Improved Injections | Effort Heatmap, Risk Signals, Discussion Targets | Conflict Cloud, Assumption List, Breakthrough Ideas, Next Experiments |
Tagsno overlap | EstimationAgileRelative sizingTeam | Theory of ConstraintsSystems thinkingChange | EstimationEffortRisk | Theory of ConstraintsAssumptionsSystems thinking |