View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
Selected:Gemba WalkSpecification by ExampleFailure Mode and Effects AnalysisAcceptance Criteria Workshop
| Criterion |  Operations Gemba Walk |  Agile Specification by Example |  Operations Failure Mode and Effects Analysis |  Agile Acceptance Criteria Workshop |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | When there is uncertainty about the real course of a process, the method brings observation to the place where work happens. It combines perception, follow-up questions, and process knowledge so decisions rest on actual workflows instead of assumptions. | 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. | 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 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 | High | Low |
Timedifferent | 30-120 min | 60-90 min pro Feature | 2-6 h | 20-40 min pro Story |
Participantsdifferent | 2-6 | 3-6 | 3-10 | 3-6 |
Formatsame | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Observation Notes, Improvement Ideas | Example Table, Acceptance Tests | FMEA Table, Risk Priority, Mitigation Actions | Acceptance Criteria, Story Update |
Tagsno overlap | LeanObservationProcessOperations | AgileRequirementsExamplesBehavior-Driven Development | RiskQualityOperationsRoot cause | AgileRequirementsRefinementBehavior-Driven Development |