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 Specification by Example |  Facilitation Responsibility Poker |  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 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 it stays unclear who carries responsibility and who only contributes, Responsibility Poker makes the distribution of responsibility explicit. It sharpens the boundaries between weighing in, deciding, and bearing consequences. | 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 | Low | Low |
Timedifferent | 1-2 h | 60-90 min pro Feature | 45-90 min | 30-60 min |
Participantsdifferent | 3-12 | 3-6 | 3-10 | 3-7 |
Formatsame | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Polarity Map, Warning Signs, Balance Actions | Example Table, Acceptance Tests | Responsibility Map, Role Agreements, Open Questions | Example Map, Acceptance Criteria, Open Questions |
Tagsno overlap | Systems thinkingTradeoffsLeadership | AgileRequirementsExamplesBehavior-Driven Development | RolesResponsibilityTeamFacilitation | Behavior-Driven DevelopmentRequirementsExamplesRefinement |