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 Working Agreements |  Agile Example Mapping |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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 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. |
Complexitydifferent | Low | Medium | Low | Low |
Timedifferent | 45-90 min | 60-90 min pro Feature | 45-90 min | 30-60 min |
Participantsdifferent | 3-10 | 3-6 | 3-12 | 3-7 |
Formatsame | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Responsibility Map, Role Agreements, Open Questions | Example Table, Acceptance Tests | Working Agreements, Team Norms, Review Cadence | Example Map, Acceptance Criteria, Open Questions |
Tagsno overlap | RolesResponsibilityTeamFacilitation | AgileRequirementsExamplesBehavior-Driven Development | TeamCollaborationAgile | Behavior-Driven DevelopmentRequirementsExamplesRefinement |