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 Nominal Group Technique |  Agile Specification by Example |  Agile Example Mapping |  Facilitation Dot Voting |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | When loud voices could dominate a round, Nominal Group Technique protects individual thinking time from group effects. It collects ideas separately first and only then enables shared weighting. | 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 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 workshop has produced too many options and the group needs to condense quickly, dot voting makes preferences visible in a short time. It bundles individual votes into a solid signal for the next selection. |
Complexitydifferent | Medium | Medium | Low | Low |
Timedifferent | 60-120 min | 60-90 min pro Feature | 30-60 min | 5-15 min |
Participantsdifferent | 5-12 | 3-6 | 3-7 | 3-20 |
Formatsame | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Ranked Ideas, Clarified Options, Group Priority | Example Table, Acceptance Tests | Example Map, Acceptance Criteria, Open Questions | Ranked list, Consensus signal, Shortlist |
Tagsno overlap | FacilitationPrioritizationVotingInclusion | AgileRequirementsExamplesBehavior-Driven Development | Behavior-Driven DevelopmentRequirementsExamplesRefinement | FacilitationVotingConsensusPrioritization |