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 ExampleThree AmigosFailure Mode and Effects AnalysisAcceptance Criteria Workshop
| Criterion |  Agile Specification by Example |  Agile Three Amigos |  Operations Failure Mode and Effects Analysis |  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. | When story, test, and implementation could drift apart, it brings business perspective, engineering, and quality together early. It prevents a story from being read differently only late in the process. | 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 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 | Low | High | Low |
Timedifferent | 60-90 min pro Feature | 15-30 min | 2-6 h | 20-40 min pro Story |
Participantsdifferent | 3-6 | 3 | 3-10 | 3-6 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Example Table, Acceptance Tests | Clarified Story, Test Examples, Open Questions | FMEA Table, Risk Priority, Mitigation Actions | Acceptance Criteria, Story Update |
Tagsno overlap | AgileRequirementsExamplesBehavior-Driven Development | CollaborationBehavior-Driven DevelopmentQualityRefinement | RiskQualityOperationsRoot cause | AgileRequirementsRefinementBehavior-Driven Development |