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 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 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 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 |
Timedifferent | 30-60 min | 45-90 min | 60-90 min pro Feature |
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 | Example Table, Acceptance Tests |
Tagsno overlap | Behavior-Driven DevelopmentRequirementsExamplesRefinement | FacilitationDialogueLarge group | AgileRequirementsExamplesBehavior-Driven Development |
Often compared together
Methods with strong topical overlap with the current selection, not yet in the comparison.
