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 |  Team Design Team Topologies Interaction Modes |  Agile Planning Poker |  Agile Affinity 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 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. | 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. |
Complexitydifferent | Low | Medium | Low | Medium |
Timedifferent | 45-90 min | Half day | 2-5 min je Item | 30-90 min |
Participantsdifferent | 3-12 | Team-Leads plus Architecture | 3-9 | 3-12 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop + async | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Working Agreements, Team Norms, Review Cadence | Interaction Heat Map, Agreements per Pair | Relative Estimates, Assumption Notes, Split Candidates | Affinity Size Map, Grouped Estimates, Unclear Items |
Tagsno overlap | TeamCollaborationAgile | TeamAlignmentCollaborationOrganization | EstimationAgileRelative sizingTeam | EstimationBacklogRelative sizing |