View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
Selected:Failure Mode and Effects AnalysisExample MappingAcceptance Criteria WorkshopSpecification by Example
| Criterion |  Operations Failure Mode and Effects Analysis |  Agile Example Mapping |  Agile Acceptance Criteria Workshop |  Agile Specification by Example |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | For a process, product, or service with noticeable failure risks, the method assesses possible failure modes in advance. It directs attention to combinations of occurrence, effect, and detectability. | 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 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. | 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 | High | Low | Low | Medium |
Timedifferent | 2-6 h | 30-60 min | 20-40 min pro Story | 60-90 min pro Feature |
Participantsdifferent | 3-10 | 3-7 | 3-6 | 3-6 |
Formatsame | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | FMEA Table, Risk Priority, Mitigation Actions | Example Map, Acceptance Criteria, Open Questions | Acceptance Criteria, Story Update | Example Table, Acceptance Tests |
Tagsno overlap | RiskQualityOperationsRoot cause | Behavior-Driven DevelopmentRequirementsExamplesRefinement | AgileRequirementsRefinementBehavior-Driven Development | AgileRequirementsExamplesBehavior-Driven Development |