View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
| Criterion |  Facilitation Alignment Mapping |  Agile 4Ls Retrospective |  Facilitation Responsibility Poker |  Facilitation Expectation Mapping |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | 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 a sprint should not only be assessed but also learned from, it captures experience in clear learning categories. It records what worked, what's missing, and what should run differently next 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. | 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 | Medium | Low | Low | Low |
Timedifferent | 1-2 h | 45–75 min | 45-90 min | 45-90 min |
Participantsdifferent | 4-12 | Team members involved | 3-10 | 3-12 |
Formatsame | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Alignment Map, Open Issues, Decision Questions | 4Ls Board, Learning Themes, Improvement Actions | Responsibility Map, Role Agreements, Open Questions | Expectation Map, Alignment Notes, Agreements |
Tagsno overlap | AlignmentStakeholdersStrategyFacilitation | RetrospectiveLearningReflectionTeam | RolesResponsibilityTeamFacilitation | AlignmentStakeholdersTeam |