View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
| Criterion |  Facilitation Expectation Mapping |  Agile Specification by Example |  Facilitation Stakeholder Mapping |  Facilitation Power Interest Grid |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | When roles, interfaces, or projects fail because of differing expectations, Expectation Mapping surfaces these differences. It shows what each side takes for granted and where the pictures diverge. | 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. | When an initiative depends on many people, interests, and power dynamics, Stakeholder Mapping systematically orders the environment. It shows who influences, who is affected, and where relationship management or safeguarding matters first. | When many stakeholders compete for attention at once, the Power Interest Grid sorts them by influence and stake. It turns individual contributions into a visible selection. The result is captured as a Power Interest Grid and a stakeholder-specific strategy. |
Complexitydifferent | Low | Medium | Low | Low |
Timedifferent | 45-90 min | 60-90 min pro Feature | 60–90 min | 30-60 min |
Participantsdifferent | 3-12 | 3-6 | 2-8 | 2-8 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop + async | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Expectation Map, Alignment Notes, Agreements | Example Table, Acceptance Tests | Stakeholder Map, Engagement Plan, Risk Notes | Power Interest Grid, Strategy per Stakeholder |
Tagsno overlap | AlignmentStakeholdersTeam | AgileRequirementsExamplesBehavior-Driven Development | StakeholdersAlignmentFacilitationChange | StakeholdersFacilitationAlignmentPlanning |