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 Accountability Ladder
Operations
Accountability Ladder
Decision Tree method illustration showing its working structure
Decision Making
Decision Tree
Paper illustration of the Consensus Workshop working structure.
Facilitation
Consensus Workshop
Paper illustration for Responsibility Poker.
Facilitation
Responsibility Poker
Purposedifferent
With defensive reactions to problems, the method shifts the view from justification to ownership. It makes visible which reaction stage a person or team is currently stuck on.For decisions with follow-on paths and dependencies, a linear comparison is often not enough. A Decision Tree shows how options branch under conditions and which consequences hang on each branch.When a group needs a solid decision without outvoting individual factions, a Consensus Workshop creates a negotiable common ground. It makes agreement, reservations, and open tensions discussable at the same time.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.
Complexitydifferent
LowMediumMediumLow
Timedifferent
20-45 min30-90 min1-3 h45-90 min
Participantsdifferent
1-81-65-303-10
Formatdifferent
Workshop + asyncWorkshop + asyncWorkshopWorkshop
Outputdifferent
Ownership Reflection, Action Commitment, Coaching NotesDecision Tree, Option Map, Assumption ListConsensus Clusters, Theme Titles, Priority AreasResponsibility Map, Role Agreements, Open Questions
Tagsno overlap
ResponsibilityLeadershipTeam
DecisionTreeOptions
FacilitationConsensusWorkshopAlignment
RolesResponsibilityTeamFacilitation
Add more methods