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 Working Agreements |  Facilitation Alignment Mapping |  Agile Planning Poker |  Facilitation Expectation Mapping |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | When collaboration needs more than implicit expectations, it lays out shared ground rules openly. It creates reliability for conduct, availability, and decision paths. | 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 estimates within the team diverge too much, it puts differing expectations on a common test bench. It separates rough complexity from unspoken assumptions. | 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 | 45-90 min | 1-2 h | 2-5 min je Item | 45-90 min |
Participantsdifferent | 3-12 | 4-12 | 3-9 | 3-12 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop + async | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Working Agreements, Team Norms, Review Cadence | Alignment Map, Open Issues, Decision Questions | Relative Estimates, Assumption Notes, Split Candidates | Expectation Map, Alignment Notes, Agreements |
Tagsno overlap | TeamCollaborationAgile | AlignmentStakeholdersStrategyFacilitation | EstimationAgileRelative sizingTeam | AlignmentStakeholdersTeam |