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 |  Agile Example Mapping |  Facilitation Open Space Technology |  Facilitation Fishbowl Discussion |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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 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 a complex topic does not yet have a fitting agenda, Open Space Technology hands topic ownership back to the participants. The format suits questions that only move forward when real interest determines the order. | When a controversial topic needs depth and discipline at the same time, Fishbowl Discussion makes the structure of the conversation transparent. The format keeps the core small enough for real dialogue and open enough for controlled turnover. |
Complexitydifferent | Medium | Low | High | Medium |
Timedifferent | 60-90 min pro Feature | 30-60 min | 0.5-2 Tage | 45-90 min |
Participantsdifferent | 3-6 | 3-7 | 20-500+ | 8-80 |
Formatsame | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Example Table, Acceptance Tests | Example Map, Acceptance Criteria, Open Questions | Session Marketplace, Proceedings, Action Topics | Discussion Insights, Observed Tensions, Follow-up Questions |
Tagsno overlap | AgileRequirementsExamplesBehavior-Driven Development | Behavior-Driven DevelopmentRequirementsExamplesRefinement | FacilitationLarge groupAutonomy | FacilitationDialogueLarge group |