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 |  Facilitation Team Charter |  Facilitation Alignment Mapping |  Facilitation Expectation 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 a team is starting fresh or working past each other, Team Charter clarifies the shared working basis. It visibly sets out how collaboration, decision paths, and mutual conduct should work day to day. | 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 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. |
Complexitydifferent | Low | Medium | Medium | Low |
Timedifferent | 45-90 min | 2-4 h | 1-2 h | 45-90 min |
Participantsdifferent | 3-12 | 3-12 | 4-12 | 3-12 |
Formatsame | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Working Agreements, Team Norms, Review Cadence | Team Charter, Working Norms, Role Notes | Alignment Map, Open Issues, Decision Questions | Expectation Map, Alignment Notes, Agreements |
Tagsno overlap | TeamCollaborationAgile | TeamAlignmentCollaboration | AlignmentStakeholdersStrategyFacilitation | AlignmentStakeholdersTeam |