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 Working Agreements |  Agile Example Mapping |  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 collaboration needs more than implicit expectations, it lays out shared ground rules openly. It creates reliability for conduct, availability, and decision paths. | 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 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 | Low | Medium |
Timedifferent | 1-2 h | 45-90 min | 30-60 min | 60-90 min pro Feature |
Participantsdifferent | 3-12 | 3-12 | 3-7 | 3-6 |
Formatsame | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Polarity Map, Warning Signs, Balance Actions | Working Agreements, Team Norms, Review Cadence | Example Map, Acceptance Criteria, Open Questions | Example Table, Acceptance Tests |
Tagsno overlap | Systems thinkingTradeoffsLeadership | TeamCollaborationAgile | Behavior-Driven DevelopmentRequirementsExamplesRefinement | AgileRequirementsExamplesBehavior-Driven Development |