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 |  Decision Making Argument Mapping |  Architecture Request for Comments |  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. | When statements, evidence, and counterarguments get mixed up, a debate quickly loses its structure. Argument Mapping breaks a thesis down into its reasoning and makes visible what it really rests on. | An RFC clarifies architecture context, options, and consequences. It structures technical context, alternatives, tradeoffs, open questions, and review feedback, and captures the result as an RFC document, reviewer comments, and a decision rationale. | 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 | Medium | Medium | Medium |
Timedifferent | 30-60 min | 1-3 h | 1-3 Wochen vom Draft bis zur Entscheidung | 60-90 min pro Feature |
Participantsdifferent | 3-7 | 1-8 | 3-20 Reviewer | 3-6 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Workshop + async | Async | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Example Map, Acceptance Criteria, Open Questions | Argument Map, Evidence Gaps, Decision Rationale | RFC document, Reviewer comments, Decision rationale, Follow-up ADR or tickets | Example Table, Acceptance Tests |
Tagsno overlap | Behavior-Driven DevelopmentRequirementsExamplesRefinement | SensemakingDecisionRationale | ArchitectureDecisionAsyncGovernance | AgileRequirementsExamplesBehavior-Driven Development |