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 Working Agreements |
|---|---|---|---|
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 collaboration needs more than implicit expectations, it lays out shared ground rules openly. It creates reliability for conduct, availability, and decision paths. |
Complexitydifferent | Medium | Low | Low |
Timedifferent | 60-90 min pro Feature | 45-90 min | 45-90 min |
Participantsdifferent | 3-6 | 3-12 | 3-12 |
Formatsame | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Example Table, Acceptance Tests | Expectation Map, Alignment Notes, Agreements | Working Agreements, Team Norms, Review Cadence |
Tagsno overlap | AgileRequirementsExamplesBehavior-Driven Development | AlignmentStakeholdersTeam | TeamCollaborationAgile |
Often compared together
Methods with strong topical overlap with the current selection, not yet in the comparison.
