View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
| Criterion |  Systems Thinking Polarity Mapping |  Agile Affinity Estimation |  Agile Specification by Example |  Agile Example Mapping |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | Polarity Mapping makes tensions between two opposing poles tangible, such as standardization and adaptation or control and autonomy. The method guards against making apparent either-or decisions prematurely. | When many tasks need to be classified quickly, it sorts them by perceived effort and similarity. It reduces the effort of fine-grained estimation for large volumes. | 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. |
Complexitydifferent | Medium | Medium | Medium | Low |
Timedifferent | 1-2 h | 30-90 min | 60-90 min pro Feature | 30-60 min |
Participantsdifferent | 3-12 | 3-12 | 3-6 | 3-7 |
Formatsame | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Polarity Map, Warning Signs, Balance Actions | Affinity Size Map, Grouped Estimates, Unclear Items | Example Table, Acceptance Tests | Example Map, Acceptance Criteria, Open Questions |
Tagsno overlap | Systems thinkingTradeoffsLeadership | EstimationBacklogRelative sizing | AgileRequirementsExamplesBehavior-Driven Development | Behavior-Driven DevelopmentRequirementsExamplesRefinement |