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 Planning Poker |  Agile Specification by Example |
|---|---|---|---|
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 estimates within the team diverge too much, it puts differing expectations on a common test bench. It separates rough complexity from unspoken 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. |
Complexitydifferent | Medium | Low | Medium |
Timedifferent | 1-2 h | 2-5 min je Item | 60-90 min pro Feature |
Participantsdifferent | 3-12 | 3-9 | 3-6 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Workshop + async | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Polarity Map, Warning Signs, Balance Actions | Relative Estimates, Assumption Notes, Split Candidates | Example Table, Acceptance Tests |
Tagsno overlap | Systems thinkingTradeoffsLeadership | EstimationAgileRelative sizingTeam | AgileRequirementsExamplesBehavior-Driven Development |
Often compared together
Methods with strong topical overlap with the current selection, not yet in the comparison.
