methodatlas
Compare

View methods side by side.

Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.

Criterion
Paper illustration for 1-2-4-All.
Facilitation
1-2-4-All
Paper illustration for Delegation Poker.
Facilitation
Delegation Poker
Paper illustration of shared options, independently placed voting dots, and a highlighted shortlist.
Facilitation
Dot Voting
Paper illustration for Responsibility Poker.
Facilitation
Responsibility Poker
Purposedifferent
When many people in a group too rarely get to speak, 1-2-4-All distributes thinking time more fairly. The format builds participation step by step and makes quiet or still-unformed thoughts usable faster.When decisions get stuck between leadership and team, Delegation Poker clarifies the desired scope of autonomy. It shows how much decision-making latitude a role should actually get in practice.When a workshop has produced too many options and the group needs to condense quickly, dot voting makes preferences visible in a short time. It bundles individual votes into a solid signal for the next selection.When it stays unclear who carries responsibility and who only contributes, Responsibility Poker makes the distribution of responsibility explicit. It sharpens the boundaries between weighing in, deciding, and bearing consequences.
Complexitysame
LowLowLowLow
Timedifferent
10-20 min45-90 min5-15 min45-90 min
Participantsdifferent
4-100+3-103-203-10
Formatsame
WorkshopWorkshopWorkshopWorkshop
Outputdifferent
Idea List, Shared Insights, Emergent ThemesDelegation Board, Decision Boundaries, Role AgreementsRanked list, Consensus signal, ShortlistResponsibility Map, Role Agreements, Open Questions
Tagsno overlap
FacilitationInclusionIdeation
AutonomyRolesTeam
FacilitationVotingConsensusPrioritization
RolesResponsibilityTeamFacilitation
Add more methods