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 |  Team Design Team Topologies Interaction Modes |  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 several teams collaborate repeatedly, it describes the right interaction mode for each interface between them. It clarifies responsibility, interaction, and load between teams. The result is captured as an interaction heat map and pairwise agreements. | 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 | Half day | 2-5 min je Item |
Participantsdifferent | 3-12 | 3-20 | Team-Leads plus Architecture | 3-9 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Working Agreements, Team Norms, Review Cadence | Effort Heatmap, Risk Signals, Discussion Targets | Interaction Heat Map, Agreements per Pair | Relative Estimates, Assumption Notes, Split Candidates |
Tagsno overlap | TeamCollaborationAgile | EstimationEffortRisk | TeamAlignmentCollaborationOrganization | EstimationAgileRelative sizingTeam |