View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
| Criterion |  Facilitation Responsibility Poker |  Agile Specification by Example |  Agile Acceptance Criteria Workshop |
|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | 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 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 needs clear checkpoints before implementation, it sharpens expectation and scope together. It sorts work by value, risk, and delivery ability. The result is captured as Acceptance Criteria and a Story Update. |
Complexitydifferent | Low | Medium | Low |
Timedifferent | 45-90 min | 60-90 min pro Feature | 20-40 min pro Story |
Participantsdifferent | 3-10 | 3-6 | 3-6 |
Formatsame | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Responsibility Map, Role Agreements, Open Questions | Example Table, Acceptance Tests | Acceptance Criteria, Story Update |
Tagsno overlap | RolesResponsibilityTeamFacilitation | AgileRequirementsExamplesBehavior-Driven Development | AgileRequirementsRefinementBehavior-Driven Development |
Often compared together
Methods with strong topical overlap with the current selection, not yet in the comparison.
