View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
| Criterion |  Growth A/B Testing |  Facilitation Alignment Mapping |  Facilitation Responsibility Poker |  Facilitation Expectation Mapping |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | When two variants compete, discussions quickly decide by taste rather than effect. A/B Testing checks behavior under controlled conditions and separates real improvement from chance or expectation effects. | 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 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. | 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 | High | Medium | Low | Low |
Timedifferent | 1-4 Wochen | 1-2 h | 45-90 min | 45-90 min |
Participantsdifferent | 1-6 | 4-12 | 3-10 | 3-12 |
Formatdifferent | Async | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Experiment results, Decision log, Learning summary | Alignment Map, Open Issues, Decision Questions | Responsibility Map, Role Agreements, Open Questions | Expectation Map, Alignment Notes, Agreements |
Tagsno overlap | ExperimentsGrowthAnalyticsValidation | AlignmentStakeholdersStrategyFacilitation | RolesResponsibilityTeamFacilitation | AlignmentStakeholdersTeam |