View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
| Criterion |  UX Research Contextual Inquiry |  Agile Specification by Example |  Agile Working Agreements |  Agile Example Mapping |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | When work processes are known only from accounts and the real context stays hidden, Contextual Inquiry makes behavior at the workplace visible. Observation and follow-up questions together show how people actually work, get interrupted, and improvise. | 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 collaboration needs more than implicit expectations, it lays out shared ground rules openly. It creates reliability for conduct, availability, and decision paths. | When a story carries business rules and exceptions, it brings clarity before implementation. It makes examples, open questions, and boundaries visible enough that the logic becomes jointly sound. |
Complexitydifferent | Medium | Medium | Low | Low |
Timedifferent | 1-3 Wochen | 60-90 min pro Feature | 45-90 min | 30-60 min |
Participantsdifferent | 4-12 Beobachtungen | 3-6 | 3-12 | 3-7 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Field Notes, Workflow Insights, Pain Points | Example Table, Acceptance Tests | Working Agreements, Team Norms, Review Cadence | Example Map, Acceptance Criteria, Open Questions |
Tagsno overlap | UX researchObservationContext | AgileRequirementsExamplesBehavior-Driven Development | TeamCollaborationAgile | Behavior-Driven DevelopmentRequirementsExamplesRefinement |