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 T-Shirt Sizing |  Facilitation Expectation Mapping |  Facilitation Alignment Mapping |  Facilitation Stakeholder Mapping |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | When effort only needs to be classified roughly, it makes comparability more important than false precision. It helps sort work quickly into manageable sizes. | 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. | 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. | 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. |
Complexitydifferent | Low | Low | Medium | Low |
Timedifferent | 15-45 min | 45-90 min | 1-2 h | 60–90 min |
Participantsdifferent | 2-12 | 3-12 | 4-12 | 2-8 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Size Buckets, Rough Backlog Map, Split Candidates | Expectation Map, Alignment Notes, Agreements | Alignment Map, Open Issues, Decision Questions | Stakeholder Map, Engagement Plan, Risk Notes |
Tagsno overlap | EstimationAgileRoadmap | AlignmentStakeholdersTeam | AlignmentStakeholdersStrategyFacilitation | StakeholdersAlignmentFacilitationChange |