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 |  Delivery RAID Log |  Agile Affinity Estimation |  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. | Helps clarify scope, sequence, and delivery flow in concrete terms. It makes work, boundaries, and order steerable. The result is captured as a RAID Log and a source for status reporting. | When many tasks need to be classified quickly, it sorts them by perceived effort and similarity. It reduces the effort of fine-grained estimation for large volumes. | 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 | 30 min Setup, dann laufend | 30-90 min | 2-5 min je Item |
Participantsdifferent | 3-12 | 1-3 maintaining, briefing for everyone | 3-12 | 3-9 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Async | Workshop | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Working Agreements, Team Norms, Review Cadence | RAID Log, Status Report Source | Affinity Size Map, Grouped Estimates, Unclear Items | Relative Estimates, Assumption Notes, Split Candidates |
Tagsno overlap | TeamCollaborationAgile | RiskTrackingStakeholdersGovernance | EstimationBacklogRelative sizing | EstimationAgileRelative sizingTeam |