View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
| Criterion |  Product Discovery Kano Model |  Agile Three Amigos |  Agile Specification by Example |  Decision Making Pareto Analysis |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | When features need to be distinguished by their effect on satisfaction, it makes expectations and surprises comparable. It separates basic needs, performance contribution, and delight. | When story, test, and implementation could drift apart, it brings business perspective, engineering, and quality together early. It prevents a story from being read differently only late in the process. | 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. | In many problem situations, effect is distributed unequally across many causes. A Pareto Analysis separates the few drivers with high leverage from the long remainder and focuses attention on what measurably moves the needle. |
Complexitydifferent | Medium | Low | Medium | Low |
Timedifferent | 1-2 Tage | 15-30 min | 60-90 min pro Feature | 30-60 min |
Participantsdifferent | 10-50 | 3 | 3-6 | 1-6 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Kano Matrix, Feature Classes, Priority Themes | Clarified Story, Test Examples, Open Questions | Example Table, Acceptance Tests | Pareto Chart, Top Causes, Focus List |
Tagsno overlap | SatisfactionPrioritizationCustomer | CollaborationBehavior-Driven DevelopmentQualityRefinement | AgileRequirementsExamplesBehavior-Driven Development | PrioritizationQualityFocusRoot cause |