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 |  Agile Planning Poker |  Decision Making PERT Estimation |  Facilitation Dot Estimation |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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 estimates within the team diverge too much, it puts differing expectations on a common test bench. It separates rough complexity from unspoken assumptions. | On complex initiatives, a plain average tends to understate just how uncertain the outcome really is. It separates options, evaluation criteria, and open risks. The result is captured as a PERT Estimate, Expected Value, and Risk Notes. | 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. |
Complexitydifferent | Low | Low | Medium | Low |
Timedifferent | 45-90 min | 2-5 min je Item | 15-45 min | 5-20 min |
Participantsdifferent | 3-12 | 3-9 | 1-8 | 3-20 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Working Agreements, Team Norms, Review Cadence | Relative Estimates, Assumption Notes, Split Candidates | PERT Estimate, Expected Value, Risk Notes | Effort Heatmap, Risk Signals, Discussion Targets |
Tagsno overlap | TeamCollaborationAgile | EstimationAgileRelative sizingTeam | EstimationUncertaintyRisk | EstimationEffortRisk |