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 Working Agreements |  Agile Example Mapping |  Operations Accountability Ladder |  Agile Specification by Example |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | When collaboration needs more than implicit expectations, it lays out shared ground rules openly. It creates reliability for conduct, availability, and decision paths. | 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. | 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 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. |
Complexitydifferent | Low | Low | Low | Medium |
Timedifferent | 45-90 min | 30-60 min | 20-45 min | 60-90 min pro Feature |
Participantsdifferent | 3-12 | 3-7 | 1-8 | 3-6 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop + async | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Working Agreements, Team Norms, Review Cadence | Example Map, Acceptance Criteria, Open Questions | Ownership Reflection, Action Commitment, Coaching Notes | Example Table, Acceptance Tests |
Tagsno overlap | TeamCollaborationAgile | Behavior-Driven DevelopmentRequirementsExamplesRefinement | ResponsibilityLeadershipTeam | AgileRequirementsExamplesBehavior-Driven Development |