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 Specification by Example |  Facilitation Expectation Mapping |  Agile Example Mapping |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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 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 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 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. |
Complexitydifferent | Low | Medium | Low | Low |
Timedifferent | 45-90 min | 60-90 min pro Feature | 45-90 min | 30-60 min |
Participantsdifferent | 3-12 | 3-6 | 3-12 | 3-7 |
Formatsame | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Working Agreements, Team Norms, Review Cadence | Example Table, Acceptance Tests | Expectation Map, Alignment Notes, Agreements | Example Map, Acceptance Criteria, Open Questions |
Tagsno overlap | TeamCollaborationAgile | AgileRequirementsExamplesBehavior-Driven Development | AlignmentStakeholdersTeam | Behavior-Driven DevelopmentRequirementsExamplesRefinement |