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 Three Amigos |  Agile Planning Poker |  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 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 estimates within the team diverge too much, it puts differing expectations on a common test bench. It separates rough complexity from unspoken assumptions. | 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. |
Complexitysame | Low | Low | Low | Low |
Timedifferent | 45-90 min | 15-30 min | 2-5 min je Item | 30-60 min |
Participantsdifferent | 3-12 | 3 | 3-9 | 3-7 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Working Agreements, Team Norms, Review Cadence | Clarified Story, Test Examples, Open Questions | Relative Estimates, Assumption Notes, Split Candidates | Example Map, Acceptance Criteria, Open Questions |
Tagsno overlap | TeamCollaborationAgile | CollaborationBehavior-Driven DevelopmentQualityRefinement | EstimationAgileRelative sizingTeam | Behavior-Driven DevelopmentRequirementsExamplesRefinement |