View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
Selected:Specification by ExampleExpectation MappingTeam Topologies Interaction ModesExample Mapping
| Criterion |  Agile Specification by Example |  Facilitation Expectation Mapping |  Team Design Team Topologies Interaction Modes |  Agile Example 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 several teams collaborate repeatedly, it describes the right interaction mode for each interface between them. It clarifies responsibility, interaction, and load between teams. The result is captured as an interaction heat map and pairwise agreements. | 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 | Medium | Low | Medium | Low |
Timedifferent | 60-90 min pro Feature | 45-90 min | Half day | 30-60 min |
Participantsdifferent | 3-6 | 3-12 | Team-Leads plus Architecture | 3-7 |
Formatsame | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Example Table, Acceptance Tests | Expectation Map, Alignment Notes, Agreements | Interaction Heat Map, Agreements per Pair | Example Map, Acceptance Criteria, Open Questions |
Tagsno overlap | AgileRequirementsExamplesBehavior-Driven Development | AlignmentStakeholdersTeam | TeamAlignmentCollaborationOrganization | Behavior-Driven DevelopmentRequirementsExamplesRefinement |