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 |  Agile Working Agreements |  Agile Planning Poker |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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 collaboration needs more than implicit expectations, it lays out shared ground rules openly. It creates reliability for conduct, availability, and decision paths. | When estimates within the team diverge too much, it puts differing expectations on a common test bench. It separates rough complexity from unspoken assumptions. |
Complexitydifferent | Medium | Medium | Low | Low |
Timedifferent | 1-2 h | 60-90 min pro Feature | 45-90 min | 2-5 min je Item |
Participantsdifferent | 3-12 | 3-6 | 3-12 | 3-9 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Polarity Map, Warning Signs, Balance Actions | Example Table, Acceptance Tests | Working Agreements, Team Norms, Review Cadence | Relative Estimates, Assumption Notes, Split Candidates |
Tagsno overlap | Systems thinkingTradeoffsLeadership | AgileRequirementsExamplesBehavior-Driven Development | TeamCollaborationAgile | EstimationAgileRelative sizingTeam |