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 Team Charter |  Agile Working Agreements |  Facilitation Expectation 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 a team is starting fresh or working past each other, Team Charter clarifies the shared working basis. It visibly sets out how collaboration, decision paths, and mutual conduct should work day to day. | When collaboration needs more than implicit expectations, it lays out shared ground rules openly. It creates reliability for conduct, availability, and decision paths. | 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. |
Complexitydifferent | Medium | Medium | Low | Low |
Timedifferent | 60-90 min pro Feature | 2-4 h | 45-90 min | 45-90 min |
Participantsdifferent | 3-6 | 3-12 | 3-12 | 3-12 |
Formatsame | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Example Table, Acceptance Tests | Team Charter, Working Norms, Role Notes | Working Agreements, Team Norms, Review Cadence | Expectation Map, Alignment Notes, Agreements |
Tagsno overlap | AgileRequirementsExamplesBehavior-Driven Development | TeamAlignmentCollaboration | TeamCollaborationAgile | AlignmentStakeholdersTeam |