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 Stakeholder Mapping |  Agile Bucket System |  Facilitation Alignment 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 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 a large batch of work needs a fast, rough estimate, it sorts items into predefined size buckets. It sorts work by value, risk, and delivery ability. The result is captured as a Bucketed Backlog, Relative Estimates, and Split Candidates. | 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 | Low | Low | Medium | Medium |
Timedifferent | 2-5 min je Item | 60–90 min | 30-90 min | 1-2 h |
Participantsdifferent | 3-9 | 2-8 | 3-12 | 4-12 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Relative Estimates, Assumption Notes, Split Candidates | Stakeholder Map, Engagement Plan, Risk Notes | Bucketed Backlog, Relative Estimates, Split Candidates | Alignment Map, Open Issues, Decision Questions |
Tagsno overlap | EstimationAgileRelative sizingTeam | StakeholdersAlignmentFacilitationChange | EstimationBacklogRelative sizing | AlignmentStakeholdersStrategyFacilitation |