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 |  UX Research Empathy Mapping |  Innovation Design Charrette |  Agile Acceptance Criteria Workshop |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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 a lot is assumed about a target group but little is seen jointly, empathy mapping makes knowledge and gaps directly comparable. The picture also shows which assumptions hold up and where evidence is missing. | In a tightly timed design process with many participants, the method pools several lines of thinking in a short time. It brings parallel design energy without letting the discussion tip into endless coordination. This quickly produces solid directions for architecture or space. | 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. |
Complexitydifferent | Low | Low | Medium | Low |
Timedifferent | 30-60 min | 30–60 min | Halber Tag bis mehrere Tage | 20-40 min pro Story |
Participantsdifferent | 3-7 | 4-8 | 10-50 | 3-6 |
Formatsame | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Example Map, Acceptance Criteria, Open Questions | Empathy Map, Assumptions List, Research Gaps | Sketches and Concepts, Consolidated Solution Sketch, Prioritized Direction | Acceptance Criteria, Story Update |
Tagsno overlap | Behavior-Driven DevelopmentRequirementsExamplesRefinement | SynthesisQualitativeWorkshop | BrainstormingWorkshopCollaborationIdeation | AgileRequirementsRefinementBehavior-Driven Development |