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 Three Amigos |  Facilitation Alignment Mapping |  Agile Specification by Example |  Facilitation Stakeholder Mapping |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | 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 several people work toward one goal but hold different mental maps, Alignment Mapping makes the discrepancies visible. It arranges goals, assumptions, and priorities so shared direction becomes verifiable. | 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 an initiative depends on many people, interests, and power dynamics, Stakeholder Mapping systematically orders the environment. It shows who influences, who is affected, and where relationship management or safeguarding matters first. |
Complexitydifferent | Low | Medium | Medium | Low |
Timedifferent | 15-30 min | 1-2 h | 60-90 min pro Feature | 60–90 min |
Participantsdifferent | 3 | 4-12 | 3-6 | 2-8 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Clarified Story, Test Examples, Open Questions | Alignment Map, Open Issues, Decision Questions | Example Table, Acceptance Tests | Stakeholder Map, Engagement Plan, Risk Notes |
Tagsno overlap | CollaborationBehavior-Driven DevelopmentQualityRefinement | AlignmentStakeholdersStrategyFacilitation | AgileRequirementsExamplesBehavior-Driven Development | StakeholdersAlignmentFacilitationChange |