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 |  Agile Three Amigos |  Facilitation Nominal Group Technique |  Agile Example 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 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. | When loud voices could dominate a round, Nominal Group Technique protects individual thinking time from group effects. It collects ideas separately first and only then enables shared weighting. | 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. |
Complexitydifferent | Medium | Low | Medium | Low |
Timedifferent | 60-90 min pro Feature | 15-30 min | 60-120 min | 30-60 min |
Participantsdifferent | 3-6 | 3 | 5-12 | 3-7 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Example Table, Acceptance Tests | Clarified Story, Test Examples, Open Questions | Ranked Ideas, Clarified Options, Group Priority | Example Map, Acceptance Criteria, Open Questions |
Tagsno overlap | AgileRequirementsExamplesBehavior-Driven Development | CollaborationBehavior-Driven DevelopmentQualityRefinement | FacilitationPrioritizationVotingInclusion | Behavior-Driven DevelopmentRequirementsExamplesRefinement |