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 ExampleWorking AgreementsExpectation MappingTeam Topologies Interaction Modes
| Criterion |  Agile Specification by Example |  Agile Working Agreements |  Facilitation Expectation Mapping |  Team Design Team Topologies Interaction Modes |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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. | 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. | When several teams collaborate repeatedly, it describes the right interaction mode for each interface between them. It clarifies responsibility, interaction, and load between teams. The result is captured as an interaction heat map and pairwise agreements. |
Complexitydifferent | Medium | Low | Low | Medium |
Timedifferent | 60-90 min pro Feature | 45-90 min | 45-90 min | Half day |
Participantsdifferent | 3-6 | 3-12 | 3-12 | Team-Leads plus Architecture |
Formatsame | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Example Table, Acceptance Tests | Working Agreements, Team Norms, Review Cadence | Expectation Map, Alignment Notes, Agreements | Interaction Heat Map, Agreements per Pair |
Tagsno overlap | AgileRequirementsExamplesBehavior-Driven Development | TeamCollaborationAgile | AlignmentStakeholdersTeam | TeamAlignmentCollaborationOrganization |