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 Working Agreements |  Agile Specification by Example |  Agile Planning Poker |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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 collaboration needs more than implicit expectations, it lays out shared ground rules openly. It creates reliability for conduct, availability, and decision paths. | 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 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 | Low | Medium | Low |
Timedifferent | Wochen bis Monate | 45-90 min | 60-90 min pro Feature | 2-5 min je Item |
Participantsdifferent | 3-12 | 3-12 | 3-6 | 3-9 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Problem Statement, Solution Options, Prototypes, Deliverables per Phase | Working Agreements, Team Norms, Review Cadence | Example Table, Acceptance Tests | Relative Estimates, Assumption Notes, Split Candidates |
Tagsno overlap | ProcessDivergenceInnovation | TeamCollaborationAgile | AgileRequirementsExamplesBehavior-Driven Development | EstimationAgileRelative sizingTeam |