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 Planning Poker |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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 estimates within the team diverge too much, it puts differing expectations on a common test bench. It separates rough complexity from unspoken assumptions. |
Complexitydifferent | Medium | Medium | Low | Low |
Timedifferent | 1-3 Wochen | 60-90 min pro Feature | 45-90 min | 2-5 min je Item |
Participantsdifferent | 4-12 Beobachtungen | 3-6 | 3-12 | 3-9 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Field Notes, Workflow Insights, Pain Points | Example Table, Acceptance Tests | Working Agreements, Team Norms, Review Cadence | Relative Estimates, Assumption Notes, Split Candidates |
Tagsno overlap | UX researchObservationContext | AgileRequirementsExamplesBehavior-Driven Development | TeamCollaborationAgile | EstimationAgileRelative sizingTeam |