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 Stakeholder 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 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 | Medium | Low | Low |
Timedifferent | 45-90 min | 1-2 h | 2-5 min je Item | 60–90 min |
Participantsdifferent | 3-12 | 4-12 | 3-9 | 2-8 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop + async | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Working Agreements, Team Norms, Review Cadence | Alignment Map, Open Issues, Decision Questions | Relative Estimates, Assumption Notes, Split Candidates | Stakeholder Map, Engagement Plan, Risk Notes |
Tagsno overlap | TeamCollaborationAgile | AlignmentStakeholdersStrategyFacilitation | EstimationAgileRelative sizingTeam | StakeholdersAlignmentFacilitationChange |