View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
| Criterion |  Innovation Double Diamond |  Agile Three Amigos |  Agile Acceptance Criteria Workshop |  Agile Working Agreements |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | For complex problems with a fuzzy situation, the method cleanly separates search space and decision. It first creates breadth in understanding and then focus in elaboration. This brings open questions, problem definition, and solution path into a traceable movement. | When story, test, and implementation could drift apart, it brings business perspective, engineering, and quality together early. It prevents a story from being read differently only late in the process. | When a story needs clear checkpoints before implementation, it sharpens expectation and scope together. It sorts work by value, risk, and delivery ability. The result is captured as Acceptance Criteria and a Story Update. | When collaboration needs more than implicit expectations, it lays out shared ground rules openly. It creates reliability for conduct, availability, and decision paths. |
Complexitydifferent | Medium | Low | Low | Low |
Timedifferent | Wochen bis Monate | 15-30 min | 20-40 min pro Story | 45-90 min |
Participantsdifferent | 3-12 | 3 | 3-6 | 3-12 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Problem Statement, Solution Options, Prototypes, Deliverables per Phase | Clarified Story, Test Examples, Open Questions | Acceptance Criteria, Story Update | Working Agreements, Team Norms, Review Cadence |
Tagsno overlap | ProcessDivergenceInnovation | CollaborationBehavior-Driven DevelopmentQualityRefinement | AgileRequirementsRefinementBehavior-Driven Development | TeamCollaborationAgile |