View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
| Criterion |  Agile Example Mapping |  Operations Accountability Ladder |  Agile Planning Poker |  Agile Specification by Example |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | 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. | With defensive reactions to problems, the method shifts the view from justification to ownership. It makes visible which reaction stage a person or team is currently stuck on. | When estimates within the team diverge too much, it puts differing expectations on a common test bench. It separates rough complexity from unspoken assumptions. | 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. |
Complexitydifferent | Low | Low | Low | Medium |
Timedifferent | 30-60 min | 20-45 min | 2-5 min je Item | 60-90 min pro Feature |
Participantsdifferent | 3-7 | 1-8 | 3-9 | 3-6 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Example Map, Acceptance Criteria, Open Questions | Ownership Reflection, Action Commitment, Coaching Notes | Relative Estimates, Assumption Notes, Split Candidates | Example Table, Acceptance Tests |
Tagsno overlap | Behavior-Driven DevelopmentRequirementsExamplesRefinement | ResponsibilityLeadershipTeam | EstimationAgileRelative sizingTeam | AgileRequirementsExamplesBehavior-Driven Development |