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 ExampleFailure Mode and Effects AnalysisGemba WalkAcceptance Criteria Workshop
| Criterion |  Agile Specification by Example |  Operations Failure Mode and Effects Analysis |  Operations Gemba Walk |  Agile Acceptance Criteria Workshop |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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. | For a process, product, or service with noticeable failure risks, the method assesses possible failure modes in advance. It directs attention to combinations of occurrence, effect, and detectability. | When there is uncertainty about the real course of a process, the method brings observation to the place where work happens. It combines perception, follow-up questions, and process knowledge so decisions rest on actual workflows instead of assumptions. | When a story needs clear checkpoints before implementation, it sharpens expectation and scope together. It sorts work by value, risk, and delivery ability. The result is captured as Acceptance Criteria and a Story Update. |
Complexitydifferent | Medium | High | Low | Low |
Timedifferent | 60-90 min pro Feature | 2-6 h | 30-120 min | 20-40 min pro Story |
Participantsdifferent | 3-6 | 3-10 | 2-6 | 3-6 |
Formatsame | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Example Table, Acceptance Tests | FMEA Table, Risk Priority, Mitigation Actions | Observation Notes, Improvement Ideas | Acceptance Criteria, Story Update |
Tagsno overlap | AgileRequirementsExamplesBehavior-Driven Development | RiskQualityOperationsRoot cause | LeanObservationProcessOperations | AgileRequirementsRefinementBehavior-Driven Development |