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 |  Facilitation Fishbowl Discussion |  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 controversial topic needs depth and discipline at the same time, Fishbowl Discussion makes the structure of the conversation transparent. The format keeps the core small enough for real dialogue and open enough for controlled turnover. | 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 | Medium | Low |
Timedifferent | 30-60 min | 45-90 min | 20-40 min pro Story |
Participantsdifferent | 3-7 | 8-80 | 3-6 |
Formatsame | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Example Map, Acceptance Criteria, Open Questions | Discussion Insights, Observed Tensions, Follow-up Questions | Acceptance Criteria, Story Update |
Tagsno overlap | Behavior-Driven DevelopmentRequirementsExamplesRefinement | FacilitationDialogueLarge group | AgileRequirementsRefinementBehavior-Driven Development |
Often compared together
Methods with strong topical overlap with the current selection, not yet in the comparison.
