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 Dot Estimation |  Facilitation Team Charter |  Agile Planning Poker |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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 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. | When a team is starting fresh or working past each other, Team Charter clarifies the shared working basis. It visibly sets out how collaboration, decision paths, and mutual conduct should work day to day. | When estimates within the team diverge too much, it puts differing expectations on a common test bench. It separates rough complexity from unspoken assumptions. |
Complexitydifferent | Low | Low | Medium | Low |
Timedifferent | 45-90 min | 5-20 min | 2-4 h | 2-5 min je Item |
Participantsdifferent | 3-12 | 3-20 | 3-12 | 3-9 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Working Agreements, Team Norms, Review Cadence | Effort Heatmap, Risk Signals, Discussion Targets | Team Charter, Working Norms, Role Notes | Relative Estimates, Assumption Notes, Split Candidates |
Tagsno overlap | TeamCollaborationAgile | EstimationEffortRisk | TeamAlignmentCollaboration | EstimationAgileRelative sizingTeam |