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 |  Facilitation Expectation Mapping |  Agile Planning Poker |  Facilitation Alignment Mapping |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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 roles, interfaces, or projects fail because of differing expectations, Expectation Mapping surfaces these differences. It shows what each side takes for granted and where the pictures diverge. | When estimates within the team diverge too much, it puts differing expectations on a common test bench. It separates rough complexity from unspoken assumptions. | When several people work toward one goal but hold different mental maps, Alignment Mapping makes the discrepancies visible. It arranges goals, assumptions, and priorities so shared direction becomes verifiable. |
Complexitydifferent | Medium | Low | Low | Medium |
Timedifferent | 60-90 min pro Feature | 45-90 min | 2-5 min je Item | 1-2 h |
Participantsdifferent | 3-6 | 3-12 | 3-9 | 4-12 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop + async | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Example Table, Acceptance Tests | Expectation Map, Alignment Notes, Agreements | Relative Estimates, Assumption Notes, Split Candidates | Alignment Map, Open Issues, Decision Questions |
Tagsno overlap | AgileRequirementsExamplesBehavior-Driven Development | AlignmentStakeholdersTeam | EstimationAgileRelative sizingTeam | AlignmentStakeholdersStrategyFacilitation |