View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
| Criterion |  Facilitation Alignment Mapping |  Agile Specification by Example |  Facilitation Expectation Mapping |  Facilitation Stakeholder Mapping |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | When several people work toward one goal but hold different mental maps, Alignment Mapping makes the discrepancies visible. It arranges goals, assumptions, and priorities so shared direction becomes verifiable. | When business rules need to become precise, it ties language, example, and test together. It sorts work by value, risk, and delivery ability. The result is captured as an Example Table and Acceptance Tests. | When roles, interfaces, or projects fail because of differing expectations, Expectation Mapping surfaces these differences. It shows what each side takes for granted and where the pictures diverge. | When an initiative depends on many people, interests, and power dynamics, Stakeholder Mapping systematically orders the environment. It shows who influences, who is affected, and where relationship management or safeguarding matters first. |
Complexitydifferent | Medium | Medium | Low | Low |
Timedifferent | 1-2 h | 60-90 min pro Feature | 45-90 min | 60–90 min |
Participantsdifferent | 4-12 | 3-6 | 3-12 | 2-8 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Alignment Map, Open Issues, Decision Questions | Example Table, Acceptance Tests | Expectation Map, Alignment Notes, Agreements | Stakeholder Map, Engagement Plan, Risk Notes |
Tagsno overlap | AlignmentStakeholdersStrategyFacilitation | AgileRequirementsExamplesBehavior-Driven Development | AlignmentStakeholdersTeam | StakeholdersAlignmentFacilitationChange |