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 |  Innovation TRIZ |  Innovation SCAMPER |  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 technical contradictions or trade-offs, the method looks for solutions that resolve opposing requirements at the same time. It translates limits into an explicit picture of conflict that becomes workable. This produces not just compromises but more elegant principles. | For an existing solution under pressure to change, the method deliberately opens space for systematic variants. It directs attention to rebuilding, combining, and repurposing rather than only new basic ideas. This produces concrete evolution paths for products, offerings, or workflows. | 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 | 1-4 h | 30-60 min | 20-40 min pro Story |
Participantsdifferent | 3-6 | 2-8 | 2-10 | 3-6 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Example Table, Acceptance Tests | Contradiction Statement, Inventive Principles, Solution Concepts | SCAMPER Idea List, Concept Shortlist, Variation Notes | Acceptance Criteria, Story Update |
Tagsno overlap | AgileRequirementsExamplesBehavior-Driven Development | InnovationProblem solvingContradictionsCreativity | BrainstormingIdeationCreativityReframingInnovation | AgileRequirementsRefinementBehavior-Driven Development |