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 Working Agreements |  Operations Accountability Ladder |  Facilitation Responsibility Poker |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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 collaboration needs more than implicit expectations, it lays out shared ground rules openly. It creates reliability for conduct, availability, and decision paths. | With defensive reactions to problems, the method shifts the view from justification to ownership. It makes visible which reaction stage a person or team is currently stuck on. | When it stays unclear who carries responsibility and who only contributes, Responsibility Poker makes the distribution of responsibility explicit. It sharpens the boundaries between weighing in, deciding, and bearing consequences. |
Complexitydifferent | Medium | Low | Low | Low |
Timedifferent | 60-90 min pro Feature | 45-90 min | 20-45 min | 45-90 min |
Participantsdifferent | 3-6 | 3-12 | 1-8 | 3-10 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop + async | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Example Table, Acceptance Tests | Working Agreements, Team Norms, Review Cadence | Ownership Reflection, Action Commitment, Coaching Notes | Responsibility Map, Role Agreements, Open Questions |
Tagsno overlap | AgileRequirementsExamplesBehavior-Driven Development | TeamCollaborationAgile | ResponsibilityLeadershipTeam | RolesResponsibilityTeamFacilitation |