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 Fishbowl Discussion |  Agile Example Mapping |  Facilitation Lean Coffee |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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 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. | 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 group without a fixed agenda needs to get into useful conversations quickly, Lean Coffee structures the start around interests rather than a presentation. The group itself negotiates which topics get time first and which wait. |
Complexitydifferent | Medium | Medium | Low | Low |
Timedifferent | 60-90 min pro Feature | 45-90 min | 30-60 min | 30-90 min |
Participantsdifferent | 3-6 | 8-80 | 3-7 | 3-20 |
Formatsame | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Example Table, Acceptance Tests | Discussion Insights, Observed Tensions, Follow-up Questions | Example Map, Acceptance Criteria, Open Questions | Prioritized Topics, Discussion Notes, Action Items |
Tagsno overlap | AgileRequirementsExamplesBehavior-Driven Development | FacilitationDialogueLarge group | Behavior-Driven DevelopmentRequirementsExamplesRefinement | FacilitationAutonomyDialogue |