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 |  Knowledge Modeling Knowledge Mapping |  Agile Specification by Example |  Agile Planning Poker |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | When collaboration needs more than implicit expectations, it lays out shared ground rules openly. It creates reliability for conduct, availability, and decision paths. | Knowledge Mapping makes knowledge, gaps, and transfer paths visible across a field. It fits when expertise should not just exist but also be findable and transferable. | 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 estimates within the team diverge too much, it puts differing expectations on a common test bench. It separates rough complexity from unspoken assumptions. |
Complexitydifferent | Low | Medium | Medium | Low |
Timedifferent | 45-90 min | 1-3 h | 60-90 min pro Feature | 2-5 min je Item |
Participantsdifferent | 3-12 | 3-12 | 3-6 | 3-9 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Working Agreements, Team Norms, Review Cadence | Knowledge Map, Critical Knowledge Areas, Transfer Plan | Example Table, Acceptance Tests | Relative Estimates, Assumption Notes, Split Candidates |
Tagsno overlap | TeamCollaborationAgile | KnowledgeMappingRisk | AgileRequirementsExamplesBehavior-Driven Development | EstimationAgileRelative sizingTeam |