View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
| Criterion |  Agile Specification by Example |  UX Research Empathy Mapping |  Agile Three Amigos |  Innovation Design Charrette |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | 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 lot is assumed about a target group but little is seen jointly, empathy mapping makes knowledge and gaps directly comparable. The picture also shows which assumptions hold up and where evidence is missing. | When story, test, and implementation could drift apart, it brings business perspective, engineering, and quality together early. It prevents a story from being read differently only late in the process. | In a tightly timed design process with many participants, the method pools several lines of thinking in a short time. It brings parallel design energy without letting the discussion tip into endless coordination. This quickly produces solid directions for architecture or space. |
Complexitydifferent | Medium | Low | Low | Medium |
Timedifferent | 60-90 min pro Feature | 30–60 min | 15-30 min | Halber Tag bis mehrere Tage |
Participantsdifferent | 3-6 | 4-8 | 3 | 10-50 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop + async | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Example Table, Acceptance Tests | Empathy Map, Assumptions List, Research Gaps | Clarified Story, Test Examples, Open Questions | Sketches and Concepts, Consolidated Solution Sketch, Prioritized Direction |
Tagsno overlap | AgileRequirementsExamplesBehavior-Driven Development | SynthesisQualitativeWorkshop | CollaborationBehavior-Driven DevelopmentQualityRefinement | BrainstormingWorkshopCollaborationIdeation |